Debates of Nov. 28th, 2002

Kyoto Protocol

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Parkdale--High Park to wholeheartedly support the motion proposed by the Minister of the Environment which reads:

That this House call upon the government to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Etobicoke North.

This is the second time that I have risen in the House since September 30 to support the Kyoto protocol. On October 24 I rose to speak to the official opposition's motion on Kyoto. I shared with the House at that time a summary of the consultations that I had had with constituents in my riding about the importance of the Government of Canada ratifying Kyoto as soon as possible.

As I stated on that date, and I wish to confirm again today, the immediate ratification of Kyoto has overwhelming support in my riding. Of the numerous consultations, papers, e-mails, letters and telephone calls that I received, I have to say that only one person was against the immediate ratification of Kyoto and only person, I would say, was against it completely.

Today I would like to share with members of the House some of the comments and letters that I received from my constituents. They are not people from the oil and gas industry, but are ordinary Canadians. I received comments from people in various parts of my riding, but I will start with Sarah Harris in Parkdale:

Please support the Prime Minister in ratifying the Kyoto Protocol.... My family and I truly feel that Canada should implement the Kyoto Protocol. Of course, there will be costs, but there will be greater costs if we do nothing, like the U.S. is doing. Please, please support the Protocol.

This is from Peggy Nash who lives in the High Park area:

I am a constituent in the High Park area. I strongly support the ratification of the Kyoto Accord and I am writing to urge your government to ratify this Accord as soon as possible.

This is from Rosalie Board and Craig Jackson:

I am one of your constituents.... I urge you to convince the Prime Minister to quickly ratify the Kyoto Accord.

As we have seen over the past few months, our planet is very sick and is only getting sicker. We must join with the rest of the world to preserve our environment and to stop the untold suffering that will be caused by global warming.

Please do the right thing.

This is from Curtis Strilchuk:

I am writing as one of your constituents and as a concerned Canadian citizen who has become dismayed at the amount and degree of negative opinion surrounding the ratification of the Kyoto Accord.

I want to vigorously affirm my support for this government's efforts in ratifying the agreement. I believe it is an essential step toward the preservation of this planet for future generations; a responsibility we should collectively bear with deepest reverence and humility.

Please communicate my support to your colleagues in the government. I stand wholeheartedly alongside you in this issue.

While there were many e-mails with that tone which were short, there were others which actually analyzed what had happened in the last few years. I would like to share the letter from Shiraz Moola, who lives in the High Park area:

It is important that Ottawa and the provinces now move forward with an action plan to achieve the Kyoto target, in a way that will encourage the long term reductions of the emissions causing global warming.

For five years, the federal government has consulted the provinces, industry, municipalities, academics, environmental groups and others about a broad range of programs to improve energy efficiency, promote renewable energy and reduce emissions in every sector of the Canadian economy. Now it is time to develop these programs through an effective plan that will also create new jobs, encourage innovative businesses, reduce air pollution, and cut energy costs.

Do not be swayed by the oil lobby or those provinces seeking more delay. Any short term profit loss is far outweighed by the costs of not taking serious action. Global warming and environmental degradation has a tremendous impact on all aspects of our economy as well as our health.

Last but not least I would like to share an e-mail from a good friend of mine, Chris Winter:

Both in my capacity as Executive Director for the Conservation Council of Ontario, and as board member of Green$aver (which specializes in home energy conservation), I am appalled at the unnecessary delay in ratifying the Kyoto Protocol and in implementing energy conservation measures that should have been in place years ago.

We are the second worst country in the world with respect to per capita energy consumption (behind Australia). According to Statistics Canada data (Human Activity and the Environment 2000), Canada's consumption of primary energy rose 120% over the thirty year period from 1967 to 1997 (from 4,500 petajoules to 10,000 petajoules). Our hesitation to act is inexcusable.

I recall that, in 1995, the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers had agreed to stabilize CO2 emissions at 1990 levels by 2000 (the National Action Plan on Climate Change. It was even written into the business plan for the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. This commitment disappeared with Kyoto and has been replaced with five more years of delay.

I submit that what we are hearing from those random letters is the true feeling of the average Canadian. I would submit that these views are the majority.

Interestingly enough, an article appeared in last weekend's Globe and Mail entitled “Kyoto support dips as ratification nears”. This article reported on a poll undertaken by the Environics international group. It showed that support for the Kyoto protocol had softened by 11 points since May to 60%. At the same time, that poll found that the majority of Canadians, in fact two-thirds of Canadians, do not trust either the Alberta government or the oil and gas industry to develop an alternative plan to fight climate change. A majority of Canadians do support our immediate ratification.

We have to remember that climate change is a global problem and as such requires global solutions. As my hon. colleague from the official opposition said, while Canada is only responsible for approximately 2% of global greenhouse gas emissions, we feel the full effect of the whole world's greenhouse gas emissions, as do other countries around the world. We are feeling the effect of global warming right now. It is essential that we begin to take action now if we are to minimize the extent of those effects and avoid the potentially disastrous effects that our scientists predict will occur with unmitigated warning.

In that context, I want to share with members a frightening article that I read in last Sunday's New York Times entitled “As Andean glaciers shrink, water worries grow”. The article was about the disappearance of the glaciers in the Andes. In a phenomenon that scientists are calling a calamity in the making, the glaciers of the central Andes are vanishing because of global warming.

The article went on to say that the disappearance of the glaciers is nearly unavoidable and could lead to water shortages in places like Bolivia and Peru. Those countries depend on glaciers, rain and the snow that falls in the mountains for water for drinking, irrigating fields and generating electricity.

Disappearing glaciers are not just a problem in Bolivia. Shrinking glaciers are actually a worldwide phenomenon. Great slices of snow and ice disappear every year from the Austrian alps, from Glacier National Park in Montana and the glaciers in the Rockies in Alberta.

The vast majority of the glaciers in the tropics are disappearing because of where they are located. They are smaller to begin with and are located in a region that is more sensitive to climate change.

The article said that changes are already being noted by the people who live in the mountains and already fear for the future of agriculture in the mountains.

The climatic changes being experienced in the Andes have been disastrous throughout the region. Mountain glaciers have been vanishing at a particularly rapid pace.

The article notes that according to the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University, Andean glaciers have retreated by as much as 25% in the last 30 years.

The article also notes, interestingly enough, that the government officials in Bolivia have not planned for the effects of continued global warming. They are using up the reserves of water but they have not done anything about the infrastructure that will be necessary to ensure those reserves are there.

[An hon. member]

Just like Alberta.

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Just like Alberta, Mr. Speaker.

We cannot wait for an action because the costs of an action would far outweigh any immediate economic costs that we would all have to share in Canada.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member of Parliament would listen to her constituents, but I wonder whether she would concede that it might be possible that the constituents are basing their letters on information which is not accurate. I am just asking whether it is possible that this could be.

The reason I say this is that in what we have observed, a lot of people think that Kyoto has to do with the reduction of pollution, whereas in fact it has to do with the decrease of carbon dioxide emissions primarily. Carbon dioxide comprises about .03% of the earth's atmosphere. Consequently, a small increase in the amount of carbon dioxide is a large percentage increase. Therefore the issue can be greatly overstated

Also, with respect to its effect on global warming, when people think that the science is in on this, that just is not true. There are as many scientists on the other side of the issue as there are those who claim that carbon dioxide is the cause.

Is it possible that a large number of people in her constituency, and mine, who support ratifying Kyoto, if there are some, may possibly be misinformed?

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member speaks about carbon dioxide, that is but one of many greenhouse gas emissions.

One thing we also have to remember is that greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, actually retain heat. There is a link between smog and air pollution and the amount of greenhouse gases in the air.

Actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would help Canada achieve its clean air goals. These include reducing emissions of our particulate matter, nitrogen oxide and sulphur oxide, from emitters like thermoelectricity plants, refineries, and pulp and paper mills; reducing traffic congestion in our cities; and reducing emissions from homes and buildings.

Certainly, if anything, this summer with the doubling of the number of days that were over 30°C, the city of Toronto is evidence of problems that we have with the number of greenhouse gases in the air with the CO

2

being there.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from November 25 consideration of the motion that Bill C-260, an act to amend the Hazardous Products Act (fire-safe cigarettes) be now read the second time and referred to a committee.

Hazardous Products Act

[Inky Mark, Canadian Alliance, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure to rise and speak to Bill C-260, a private member's bill entitled, an act to amend the Hazardous Products Act. I thank the hon. member for Scarborough East for bringing this important matter before the House of Commons in the form of a private member's bill.

Let me state from the outset that the bill deals with property damage caused by careless smoking, but more important, it deals with saving lives. In 1992 careless smoking in Canada accounted for 68 fatalities, 385 injuries, $37 million in damages and 3,199 fires.

On average, Canadians consume approximately 56 billion cigarettes annually and the damage caused by them is substantial. The solution to this may be found in what is known as flammability standards. When I read over the legislation the first thought that came to mind was that the bill was not trying to get Canadians to stop smoking, but that smoking was an addiction that required help. Rather, what the bill says is that if people do smoke, we will make it safer for them as well as for those around them.

Essentially what the bill would do is compel the Minister of Health to report to Parliament and explain why the Hazardous Products Act should or should not be amended to include cigarettes under the category of flammability standards.

Clearly this is an issue that affects the entire country regardless of age or region. Further, I am sure members would no doubt agree that saving lives of smokers and non-smokers alike is of significant public interest to all of us here in the Chamber this afternoon.

One lit cigarette left unattended can have dire consequences and devastating impacts. Dangerous smoking may seem to many to be a non-issue, however, it is a very important one which Canadians from coast to coast must be encouraged to take seriously. Over the years cigarette fires have caused a large number of fatalities. The terrible tragedies is that most of the deaths could have been prevented if smokers had just taken a few simple precautions.

The thing that Canadians must be aware of is that it can happen to anyone, young or old, at any time. If one is smoking late at night or after a drink, it is only natural that one's reactions tend to be slower and, as such, that is the time when extra care must be taken while smoking.

A smouldering cigarette is the biggest cause of fatal fires, causing one-third of all deaths from fires in the home. These fires are more likely to start during the night and some of the most common places for them to start are sofas, beds and carpets. A cigarette burns at up to 780° centigrade, so I would remind all Canadians to ensure that when they put out a cigarette that it is really put out.

There is good news in all of this because cigarette-related fires can be prevented by taking a few simple precautions. Some of these include: avoid smoking in bed; avoid leaving lit cigarettes unattended; always use a proper ashtray and make sure it cannot be knocked over; take special care when you are tired or you have been drinking; keep matches and lighters away from children; and install and maintain a smoke alarm.

Although these personal safety precautions can be taken, more can and must be done. It is for this reason that I applaud my colleague for bringing this private member's bill forward. Cigarettes should be included in the Hazardous Products Act and flammability standards should be applied to them. It is worth noting that currently in the United States, the Massachusetts legislature has before it a unique opportunity to move Massachusetts out front in its effort to save lives from being lost to cigarettes.

Smoking materials are the leading cause of fatal fires in the United States. Recent statistics from the National Fire Protection Association show that there were 900 fire deaths, 2,500 injuries and $410 million in property damage caused by smoking materials in one year in the United States.

In Massachusetts in the 1990s there were 178 deaths, 763 fire injuries and $75 million in property damage caused by such fires. During the same period these fires caused 677 firefighter injuries in Massachusetts.

The Massachusetts legislature has before it the Moakley bill, a state version of the federal legislation first introduced in congress by Joe Moakley in 1979. It would require that all cigarettes sold in Massachusetts have strict fire safety standards. When left burning unattended they would extinguish themselves or burn at temperatures that do not ignite furniture or mattresses, thereby lessening the chance of fire. This is a very good idea and a very worthwhile piece of legislation. Lessons can be learned from the Massachusetts approach and I think that those who are interested in this topic should take time to read over the Moakley bill.

Also New York State recently passed a similar bill unanimously stating that all cigarettes sold in the state would have to meet flammability standards by July 2003. It remains my solemn opinion that this is certainly the right thing to do.

The following facts are statistics from Great Britain. Smoking could be more dangerous that we think. Every three days someone dies because of a cigarette fire. The highest injury rate in smoking material fires is among young people between the ages of 25 and 34. Men are more likely to be killed or injured in cigarette fires; six out of 10 of those killed are men and over half of those injured are men. Six out of ten smokers say cigarettes are one of the top causes of house fires but every year fewer and fewer people are taking steps to prevent these fires. Only four out of ten smokers say that they check their ashtrays before going to bed each night. Nearly half of all households have a smoker living in them. These households are nearly one and a half times more likely to have a fire than non-smoking homes. Despite the dangers of falling asleep or setting bedding on fire, 17% of smokers confessed to lighting up in bed; 18 to 34 year olds are even more likely to smoke in bed.

I think my remarks today will reflect the importance of implementing cigarette safety standards here in Canada. The choices are simple: life or death.

We have a golden opportunity here to support this private member's bill. I hope the Minister of Health and the entire government will take notice of the widespread support for the bill and work hard toward implementing appropriate standards for cigarettes in this country as a result.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to respond, on behalf of the Minister of Health, to the proposals contained in Bill C-260, an act to amend the Hazardous Products Act, which was tabled as a private member's bill by the hon. member for Scarborough East.

Let me start by thanking the hon. member for his hard work and thoughtful efforts in the preparation of the legislation. I am encouraged to see that members of the House are taking action to help protect the health of Canadians.

The purpose of the bill is to help reduce the number of fires ignited by carelessly handled or discarded cigarettes, thus reducing death and injury caused by these fires.

The Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs has reported that from 1995 to 1999 there were at least 14,030 fires where smokers' materials were the source of ignition. These fires caused 356 fatalities, injured 1,615 people and resulted in over $223 million worth of property damage. We need to address this issue, especially when one considers that innocent bystanders, such as firefighters and children, are very often the victims of these fires.

In fact. our government has had public health strategies in place for years to protect and educate citizens about the dangers associated with fires, including those that are ignited by cigarettes.

For example, the enforcement of the hazardous products (mattresses) regulation by Health Canada ensures that mattresses that are available in Canada meet certain flammability standards, particularly with regard to ignition by cigarettes.

Similarly, through a voluntary collaboration between Health Canada and the upholstered furniture industry, we strive to ensure upholstered furniture is less prone to cigarette ignition.

These measures, coupled with public education campaigns, have decreased the number of deaths associated with cigarette ignited fires in mattresses and in furniture.

However there is merit in finding new ways to prevent such harm to Canadians and their property. Regulating the ignition propensity of cigarettes is a natural next step forward in this campaign to protect the Canadian public against fire.

Our American colleagues are currently pursuing similar action. Proposed legislation on fire safe cigarettes is currently before the United States congress. If adopted, the bill will require that all cigarettes sold in the United States meet a prescribed fire safety standard. In fact, the State of New York has already passed a bill requiring fire safety standards to be established for cigarettes, and by July 1, 2003 all cigarettes sold in New York State will have to meet these standards.

Bill C-260 aims to reduce the number of fire related deaths in Canada, over 20% of which are the result of unattended or carelessly discarded lit cigarettes. As I have indicated, we agree that this matter is worthy of investigation.

However I do have some concern in the way the bill proposes to do this. In particular, the intent of the Hazardous Products Act is to prohibit the sale and importation of hazardous or potentially hazardous products, or to make such products reasonably safe for their intended use by regulating their sale, advertising, importation and directions for use or manufacture.

There is no known way to make cigarettes safe for their intended use. In other words, the only safe cigarette is an unlit cigarette.

Setting a performance standard under the Hazardous Products Act for safe cigarette flammability criteria would contradict the intent of this act and could also detract from the departmental message that tobacco is harmful to health.

Tobacco products are far beyond being a public hazard. Smoking is an addiction that kills. Each year tobacco takes its toll on individuals and on Canada's health care system by contributing to more than 45,000 premature deaths. This is five times more than the number of premature deaths caused by murder, alcohol, car accidents and suicides combined. Of these deaths, more than 1,000 were non-smokers who died of the effects of secondhand smoke. That is why our government has taken decisive action in the form of the Tobacco Act.

This brings me to another main concern I have about Bill C-260. The current integrated approach to tobacco control works well in Canada. With direction provided by the Tobacco Act Health Canada's tobacco control program has accomplished a great deal to date in helping to curb and to reduce tobacco use among Canadians. That is why we have become a world leader on tobacco control.

Among the programs' noteworthy accomplishments is the development and the implementation of the federal tobacco control strategy, known as FTCS. This strategy includes $560 million in funding over five years to control and curb tobacco use in Canada. The FTCS embodies our belief that the most effective way to prevent and reduce tobacco use in Canada is by adopting a comprehensive, integrated and sustained approach carried out in collaboration with all partners and directed at Canadians of all ages.

It paved the way for the development of the ministerial advisory council and opened the door to improve collaboration with the provinces on tobacco related issues. The FTCS includes a long term objective: an exploration of how to mandate changes to tobacco products and reduce hazards to health.

Sections 61 and 62 of the Tobacco Act are consequential amendments to the Hazardous Products Act, specifically inserted to exclude the advertising, sale or importation of a tobacco product from jurisdictions of the Hazardous Products Act. For this reason it is the view of the Government of Canada that regulation of the so-called fire safe cigarettes, or more appropriately referred to as low ignition propensity cigarettes, should fall under the Tobacco Act.

I wish to thank the hon. member for Scarborough East for bringing this bill forward. His private member's bill raises many valid points about the need for measures to protect Canadians from fire hazards caused by carelessly handled or discarded cigarettes and cigars.

The question at hand is how best to proceed. Though I have expressed some concerns about accomplishing this under the Hazardous Products Act I recognize the importance of the objectives he is trying to reach. I would endorse the subject matter being sent to committee for further examination to determine the best way to achieve these worthwhile objectives.

[James Lunney, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to enter this debate tonight.

I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Scarborough East for the work he has done to introduce Bill C-260, an act to amend the Hazardous Products Act, and for reintroducing his bill when earlier efforts met the fate of other private members' bills, the political dead end.

Bill C-260 asks the Minister of Health to provide Parliament with reasons why the Hazardous Products Act should not be amended to include cigarettes in the flammability standards. Indeed, there are a lot of similar whys we might wish to ask the minister, such as why the Health Protection Branch has a lot of simple amino acids or minerals that promote health on a restricted list, that is, not to be sold by health food outlets, something simple like chromium picolinate, a simple mineral compound. Chromium is necessary to produce a glucose tolerance factor. Anyone with a blood sugar problem, high or low, should be taking a chromium supplement.

My hon. colleague, the member for Yellowhead, speaking on the bill during the first hour of debate rightly mentioned that the bill does not create a new bureaucracy, nor does it raise taxes for Canadians. We certainly appreciate that on this side of the House. The bill is about the safety of Canadians and making a dangerous product safer. Like my colleagues I hope that the members of the House will do the right thing and support the bill, and not relegate it to the political dustbin like so many other bills that have been brought forward by individual members.

We have heard a lot of distressing statistics related to fires caused by cigarettes. Indeed, in this hour of debate these statistics have been brought forward. These fires bring about deaths, injuries and significant material losses, losses of homes, furniture, forests and wildlife. Cigarette fires are responsible for one out of every five fire fatalities. Cigarette fires kill 100 Canadians every year with another 300 injured. The material damage caused by cigarette fires in 1999 was $36.5 million.

These are tragic numbers that could be reduced by requiring tobacco companies to make fire safe cigarettes. Why should cigarette paper include chemical additives that keep them burning without active participation, namely puffer power or pucker power? That is a valid question indeed.

In 1997 the Minister of Health said safe tobacco regulations were a priority. The reality is that neither the minister then nor the minister now has done anything to fulfill that commitment. Perhaps the previous minister was preoccupied with the issue of medical marijuana. He is well known for establishing a rock garden and that seemed to occupy a fair bit of his attention.

I would like to digress to this issue because it seems strange to me that the government could neglect a safety issue that Bill C-260 brings up, and yet proceed with so-called medical marijuana or be seen to be promoting marijuana smoking when there are some real safety concerns associated with marijuana smoking.

Researchers at the British Lung Foundation determined that smoking three marijuana cigarettes caused the same damage to the lining of the airways as 20 tobacco cigarettes and that tar from marijuana contained 50% more carcinogens than tobacco. I was at the CMA conference a year ago August in Quebec City. It happened to be the time when the then health minister was introducing strong measures to wrestle the tobacco companies to the ground over the use of the words light and mild. At the same time the irony was not lost on the medical doctors present who, during the question period, asked the then minister whether they were to assume the responsibility for the consequences of smoking marijuana, consequences that are not fully understood today or appreciated, particularly for long term use.

Three recent studies published in the British Medical Journal linked marijuana use with mental illness. Issues such as the lack of mental acuity raises important questions, such as operating heavy equipment or driving a car. What level is an impaired level for someone using marijuana? A joint today may have 10 to 35 times the TCP levels compared to the same product that some in the room may have experimented with in 1970.

One study found that smoking marijuana every day increased the risk of depression by five times and that smoking marijuana once a week doubled the risk.

A second study of 50,000 Swedish conscripts over 27 years found that marijuana increased the risk of schizophrenia by 30%.

A third study found that the earlier teenagers started smoking marijuana, the greater the risk of schizophrenia.

Tragically, this past week a teenager in British Columbia committed suicide after being found with marijuana in his possession and being grounded by his coach. We of course have sympathy for his parents and family in this tragic case but we must register some incredulity when the Senate committee advocated legalizing marijuana, not decriminalizing it but actually legalizing it, which would include people as young as 16 years of age. I understand that in most jurisdictions even to buy cigarettes people need to be 18 or 19 years old. We might wonder what some of the senators have been smoking.

While it seems that the government is rather unconcerned with safety issues around marijuana, it could and should show that it is concerned with the issue of cigarette safety, which of course is the subject of the debate tonight.

By requiring tobacco companies to make fire safe cigarettes, the government could help to prevent fatalities, injuries and material damage caused by cigarette fires. It could require tobacco companies to make cigarettes with lower paper porosity, smaller circumference, shorter filters, reducing or eliminating paper burn additives, and lower tobacco density. This would be a simple regulation to implement under the Hazardous Products Act, by including cigarettes in its flammability standards.

If the government does not want to take this simple step, then Bill C-260 should be passed to compel the Minister of Health to explain to Parliament why.

It is indeed a valid suggestion and we certainly support the intent of the bill. We congratulate the hon. member for Scarborough East for bringing the bill forward.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, once again I cannot resist the temptation to speak.

When I saw this topic, fire safe cigarettes, it reminded me of the years when I was a truck driver. One individual practised the ingestion of nicotine without fire, and his nickname was Snuffy. I will never forget Snuffy because he happened to dispose of his habit in many unsavoury ways. I remember getting into a truck one day and the side of the window was blotched and then gravity had pulled it down. I realized that he had been in the truck and did not realize that the window was in fact closed. On another occasion, I was wheeling one of those big 20 inch tires down to the shop and all of a sudden my hand felt a little different. I realized that I had driven over some. That was the first thing that came to my mind when I saw this non-fire cigarette or nicotine usage.

However, on the serious side, I had an uncle who died very tragically in a fire. When we think of fires being caused by smokers, it is usually innocent people who are affected, for example family members, often children, or other neighbours in an apartment building. Their property is lost and sometimes their lives are lost.

I have a friend who works in the nursing section of a burn unit. Nothing is sadder than to see people who have been seriously burned. It is a tremendously challenging situation.

We really cannot be against this bill because it would increase the safety of people while they are using a hazardous product. In fact, we know that cigarettes are very hazardous. It is interesting when we think of the statistics of how people die. In this case, we are told in our briefing notes that about 100 people die in Canada every year because of fires started by careless smoking.

We should also add to that list the 100 people per day in Canada who lose their lives because of smoke related illnesses. That is a statistic that totally boggles the mind. We have in excess of 30,000 people per year in Canada who lose their lives due to lung cancer and heart disease precipitated by the use of tobacco.

For us to continue to even tolerate the use of this substance in our society really boggles the mind. However, being a person who believes in individual freedom and individual choices, I guess I would continue to defend the right of a person to take a bunch of weeds, wrap them up in a piece of paper, light a match to it and suck on it. If they really want to do that, I would defend their right to do it. I have had friends tell me that I cannot take that away from them because they really enjoy it. Well, so be it.

At any rate, I would like to simply say that it is my intention to support the bill as well because it at least goes in the right direction to reduce one of the hazards associated with cigarette smoking.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Health.

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

[The Deputy Speaker]

I wonder if I might ask for the cooperation of a member who might want to make the suggestion that we see the clock at 6:30 p.m. so we could proceed.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to ask that you request that we see the clock as 6:30 p.m.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Kuan is a constituent in East Vancouver who is 95 years old. On October 28 of this year he stood up very slowly and, using a thick black brush, he wrote out in calligraphy, “The government has no need to drag its feet in repaying the head tax”.

Mr. Kuan is the only surviving payer of the head tax in Vancouver and he is one of three surviving head tax payers in all of Canada. He could not attend the rally in Ottawa that was held the next day, October 29, because he was too elderly to visit the city, but he did say in an interview, “Why doesn't the government understand?” He said that he wanted an apology but that an apology alone would not do. He wants the government to both apologize and pay compensation, and he wants the compensation to be over $500. He wants it to be over $500 because $500 is what he paid in 1923 in coming to this country. It was the equivalent of two years' wages for him to work in Canada. He went into debt. He had to borrow and he worked very hard to repay that $500.

The head tax of $50 was introduced in 1885 with the passage of the Chinese immigration act. The tax was increased to $100 in 1900 and to $500 in 1903. It was a tax imposed only on Chinese immigrants. It was the equivalent of two years' wages for a Chinese Canadian worker at that time. In 1923, the Chinese exclusion act was also passed. The purpose of that act was to prohibit Chinese migration to Canada. Between 1923 and 1947, when the act was repealed, Canada allowed only seven Chinese people into the country. As a result of the head tax, the government at the time collected approximately $23 million from about 81,000 Chinese immigrants. The present value of that today would be over $1 billion.

The policies at the time were directed at members of one group, were clearly discriminatory and were clearly intended to make entry into Canada difficult if not impossible. The racial discrimination embedded in these statutes was actively practised and its effect on individuals, families and on the Chinese Canadian community has been profound and enduring.

In 1992, the B.C. legislature passed a unanimous resolution calling on the federal government to provide redress for the Chinese exclusion act and the head tax. As I have mentioned, on October 29 there was a demonstration here in Ottawa where I and the leader of the New Democratic Party, and indeed the former member of Parliament for Vancouver East, Margaret Mitchell, who first raised this in the House in 1982, were all in attendance.

I want to ask the government again today why it has not responded to this issue. When I have raised the question in the House and when I have presented petitions we have heard that the government policy with respect to redress does not include financial compensation, yet that did happen in terms of redress for the Japanese Canadian community.

Today I want to say loud and clear to the government that its response to this very important issue in terms of the discrimination that was practised has been completely unsatisfactory. I would ask it to consider again the need to provide an apology and redress to Chinese Canadians.

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada understands the strong feelings underlying the request put forth by the Chinese-Canadian community for restitution for historical incidents.

In the past, Canada enforced some immigration practices that were at odds with our shared commitment to human justice. As Canadians we wish that those episodes had never occurred, but sadly history cannot be rewritten.

As the Hon. Sheila Finestone stated in the House of Commons in 1994, “We honour the contribution of all those communities whose members, often in the face of hardship, persevered in the building of our land”.

We all share in the responsibility to learn from the past. The Government of Canada believes that our common obligation lies in preventing such situations from ever occurring again.

Canada in 2002 is a very different Canada. Tremendous steps have been taken toward making our country a better place. The government has established constitutional guarantees and has taken other effective measures to prevent any repetition of the kind of experiences encountered by the early immigrants to the country. These include: the Canadian Bill of Rights in 1960, the Canadian Human Rights Act in 1977, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, and the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, passed in 1988.

The Chinese Immigration Act of 1923 was repealed in 1947. In the same way the Government of Canada recognizes the importance of understanding and presenting our complete history in a way that is inclusive of all Canadians.

We have worked and will continue working with Chinese Canadians and other ethnocultural communities to document their history and experiences through a wide range of commemorative projects, including films, books and exhibits that enable them to tell their stories to other Canadians.

While commemoration of our past is an important element in defining who we are as Canadians, government policy on restitution for historical incidents was announced in the House of Commons on December 14, 1994.

A core element of that policy is that federal resources will be used to create a more equitable society now and a better future for generations to come. Federal commitment in this area has been demonstrated by establishment of the Canadian Race Relations Foundation in October 1996. This organization is devoted to fostering racial harmony, promoting cross-cultural understanding and helping eliminate racism through national leadership, public education and research in these areas.

Our efforts must be directed to moving forward in areas where abuse and discrimination can be prevented. To this end, the government will continue to take concrete measures to strengthen the fabric of Canadian life by combating racism, prejudice and discrimination.

We share the vision of a Canada where the diverse backgrounds of citizens are recognized and appreciated. We are unified in the pursuit of a just and compassionate society.