Reed Elley

[Supply, October 5th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I suspect what we are really discussing here is a matter of economics, that at some point, the federal government look—

[Tobacco Act, September 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad of the opportunity to speak to Bill C-42, an act to amend the Tobacco Act. I do not think anyone in the House would minimize the importance of this act.

Tobacco consumption poses one of the most serious risks we have to the health of Canadians. I was very glad to hear the Minister of Health say that in the House today in answer to a question during question period. I am just sorry that he chose to send one of his lower echelon members of the health committee to speak rather than himself because it shows I guess the kind of importance he attaches to the bill.

Even those people who choose to use tobacco products will agree that it is a lifestyle choice that could lead to serious illness or early death. There are literally thousands of studies by competent health care professionals that attest to this fact. The issue of risk to health is not really the issue here. It is rather the one of whether the government takes seriously its role through Health Canada to protect the health interests of Canadians.

I suggest that in presenting Bill C-42 the government is not fully accepting this responsibility. It is a step in the right direction but it hardly goes far enough. Why in the world would we in the Reform Party oppose the bill when it ostensibly purports to decrease the influence of the tobacco industry over the general public and young people in particular? Simply put, because it will not really do that in the long run. Why do I say that?

First of all, it allows tobacco companies to use retail ads and billboards to advertise cigarettes to children. Ten years have passed since parliament first told the tobacco companies to take their advertising material out of the corner stores of this nation, to get them off the streets of Canada. Instead, Bill C-42 continues to give the tobacco companies another two years to reach Canadian kids on their way to school and in the stores they frequent. That is just not acceptable. If the government and the minister were really concerned about our children they would shut the door tomorrow.

I have eight children. Three of the four oldest had brief times in their lives when they smoked. I am happy to say that none of them smokes today, but it was not because of the government's poor attempt to curtail the advertising of tobacco products when they were in their teenage years. It was because of good peer pressure from both family and friends who continued to remind them of the terrible health risks of smoking: the threat of cancer of the lungs and throat, the damage to a healthy heart that is sustained by prolonged smoking, breathing that becomes hard and laboured, fingers that are discoloured, not to mention the damage that second hand smoke does to innocent children and family members who have exercised their right not to smoke.

In two years' time how many children will begin to smoke because of the advertising campaigns of the big tobacco companies? How many will get cancer in later years? How many will eventually die? Do the minister and the government want to have the blood of these young people on their hands? I urge the government to reconsider the bill and force the tobacco companies to cease this advertising immediately.

I cannot support the bill also because it allows lifestyle advertising of cigarettes to continue. The Tobacco Act says tobacco companies can advertise but not with lifestyle ads. In my estimation that is entirely appropriate. These are the ads that somehow convey to young people that smoking is fun. There is no fun in shortness of breath, no fun in irregular heartbeats, no fun in the loss of taste and smell, no fun in the pain of lingering cancer, no fun in that at all.

Third, I cannot support the bill because it does not guarantee that sponsorship promotion will end in the five years as promised. The government would have Canadians believe that Bill C-42 will make sure there is a total ban on sponsorship in five years. But the way the date is set allows the government to reset the clock and allow further extensions without coming back to parliament. That is wrong and furthermore it is undemocratic.

Clause 5 of section 52 says: “The governor in council may by regulation prescribe a day for the purposes of—”, that is beginning the countdown to restrictions and ban of cigarette sponsorship ads.

What that means is that using “may” instead of “shall” allows the government to give a permanent extension by neglecting to set the date. It means this government can test the political wind and see which way it is blowing and continue to stall on this if it is not to its political advantage.

It means that the powerful tobacco lobby will have more opportunity to influence the government's decision. It means this government, if it continues in office for the next five years, perish the thought, could simply let this thing slowly disappear into the sunset never to be heard of again. I believe Canadians feel that is totally unacceptable. It shows once again little regard for the health of Canadians.

I also cannot support this bill because allowing sponsorship advertising has already increased the retail advertising of cigarettes. A Health Canada survey shows that since the Tobacco Act came into force, retail advertising for cigarettes has actually gone up.

Health Canada has commissioned two surveys of tobacco advertising in retail outlets conducted by A.C. Neilson of approximately 5,000 retailers. The first survey was conducted in 1997 when there was no legislative ban on tobacco advertising. The second was conducted in September 1997, five months after the passage of the Tobacco Act.

What are the results? In five months the survey showed a 1.4% increase in sponsorship ads. These ads very subtly allow a local event, perhaps held in Pumpkin Corners, B.C., which would draw perhaps 1,000 people locally, to be advertised in over 10,000 retail outlets across the country. Why? At the bottom of the ad prominently displayed is the name of the tobacco company as the sponsor of an event that has relevance only to the 1,000 souls in Pumpkin Centre. From my point of view that is not honest advertising and it should not be allowed.

The big events like the Canadian Grand Prix have maintained that without this kind of advertising and support from the tobacco companies they will simply fold up and die. This claim, however, is not holding up in the face of reality. For example, the Canadian Grand Prix, as my colleague has already mentioned, has a new title sponsor in Air Canada replacing Players, a cigarette brand.

If an event is an outstanding contributor to the Canadian cultural or sports scene it will find a sponsor who will see it as a great and glorious opportunity to advertise their company or product. These events do not need tobacco advertising to exist.

It is for these reasons that I cannot support this bill. My only hope is that as it comes to the health committee for study we will see an all party consensus to make substantial amendments to it that will truly make it a bill that will safeguard the health of Canadians. If it passes third reading the way it is it will be just another example of an uncaring Liberal government that listens to big business before ordinary Canadians, a government that procrastinates while the health of young people is in jeopardy, a government that, as in many other instances, does not keep its word.

I urge all caring members of this House to oppose this bill.

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make an observation which I have not heard in in the debate today and then ask a question of the member.

For many years I have been an observer of the somewhat sad condition of the human race. In spite of the fact the government maintains that gun registration will somehow lessen the number of murders or whatever, I am afraid I have to say that gun registration in itself will not in the least stop people from killing each other.

My observation of the human race is that it is done only because of the evil in men's hearts. When that is there, there is nothing that can prevent someone from hurting someone else. That is my observation.

In the face of not having any real statistics that gun registration will decrease murders or criminal activity and it being said that a number of people are now being killed by knives in this country, on the same premise the government is now taking on gun control can we expect that at some point in the near future there will be knife control brought in by the government? Is that what will have to take place?

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this issue reminds me very much of one that occurred last year during the election campaign when millions of Canadians were very upset with the government for proposed regulations for natural health products. They were millions of signatures on petitions and this sort of thing.

We have the same kind of situation again where there are millions of people who are very much against the gun registration law proposed by this government in Bill C-68.

I am wondering if my colleague could perhaps enlighten us all on the reasons why this government continues to press on with, this flying in the face of the wishes of millions of people across this country.

[Petitions, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege on this particular day, as we have a large number of citizens across Canada coming to protest the gun law, to be able to present on behalf of 100 members of my constituency of Nanaimo—Cowichan a petition expressing their opposition to Bill C-68, the gun registration law. They feel that it is nothing more than an illegitimate tax grab of their money and that it will do nothing to really curtail crime on the streets.

They indicate that criminals do not register their guns.

[The Judiciary, June 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, political correctness and social engineering. These are just two of the loathsome byproducts perpetuated by judicial activism. Courts are no longer interpreting laws made by parliament but are instead making them on behalf of governments, derelict in their duty and void of responsibility.

The situation has resulted in the removal of parliament as the supreme law making body and given us court rulings that reflect the political agenda of precious few in this country.

This collective assault by the judiciary has meant an erosion of the traditional values held by Canadians. It has also trampled individual rights and freedoms while advancing collective rights to the detriment—

[Points Of Order, June 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that you will find there is unanimous consent for me to table a document which I mentioned in my question today.

[Aboriginal Affairs, June 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in a letter that I will table later, Indian affairs informs the chief of the Chemainus Band that it knows of the illegal timber harvest which is taking place on their reserve just outside of Nanaimo. Instead of enforcing its own regulations, in the same letter Indian affairs officials are offering to participate in a criminal act by helping the chief and council sell the timber from this old growth forest.

Will the minister of Indian affairs intervene and order that this timber be seized before any more is permitted to leave the reserve illegally?

[Hepatitis C, June 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in his continuing fight to get compensation for all Canadians who contracted hepatitis C from tainted blood, 15 year old Joey Haché will leave Halifax on his bicycle this Monday and bike across Canada.

As someone who contracted the potentially fatal liver disease from a blood transfusion, Joey is calling his journey “The Cycle of Conscience”. Its purpose is twofold: to draw attention to the plight of hepatitis C victims callously forgotten by the Liberal government and to get a million signatures on a petition which demands that the government extend an offer of compensation to all victims of this tragedy.

I spoke with Joey Haché this morning and asked if there was any message he wanted to give the Prime Minister. He said to tell the Prime Minister that he will not give up until this government does the right thing, and that he is your conscience.

For those who want to wish Joey well on his journey, he will be out on the front steps of the Peace Tower today following question period.

On behalf of all members of this House, I want to wish Joey Haché good luck.

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I do not think we should let inaccuracies go unchallenged. I want to suggest to the hon. parliamentary secretary that there is no place that he will find in the Reform Party platform or philosophy where we are in favour of privatizing the medicare system of this country.

In fact, it is not the Reform Party that has gutted the health care system of this country, it is the hon. members across the way who have not been able to prioritize their spending to make sure that things like health and education are taken care of for average Canadians in this country. It is this government that has done that. It is this government that has gutted the health care system in this country on the backs of the taxpayers. It is not right for him to suggest that the Reform Party was going to do something that it has not done.