Bob Speller

[Excise Tax Act, June 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I took interest in the hon. member's statements on this issue. I thank the hon. member for his statements. They were very interesting. I will make sure that my constituents, the farmers in my area, hear those statements because I think it is important for them to know where the Reform Party stands on this issue.

I am somewhat concerned about the fact that the Reform Party is saying that this government should not listen to tobacco farmers because they are producing a product that the Reform Party does not like.

I will go back and give a little history on this. I know hon. members across will be interested in this. These farmers got into this a number of years ago actually because of the support of government. The government encouraged them to go into these lands and grow tobacco. Many of these farmers have been there for generations. It is not easy just picking up and moving to another commodity, moving into another group.

One may be able to do that in western Canada but their critic for agriculture would realize that it takes a big cost just changing from one commodity to another. We just cannot turn tobacco farmers into another type of farmer. These farms are on average about 85 acre farms. Yes, some of them have diversified. Some of them have gone into ginseng, horticulture crops and some other crops. In fact over the last 10 years we have seen half of the farmers go, but a lot of them could not do that. They ended up on unemployment lines or welfare because there are not a lot of alternatives. One cannot turn an 85 acre farm into

just another thriving farm. The alternatives just are not there. There are not a lot of other crops frankly that can grow in those areas other than tobacco and certain crops. They were encouraged to go into other crops. In fact those markets flooded. There was not a lot of opportunity to sell the produce that they had worked so hard for.

These families have been there, as I said, for generations and do not know how to farm in a lot of other areas. It is not easy to do it. Governments in the past have tried but frankly they have failed in a lot of different areas. We have seen a lot of the pressures that many families have. We have seen a very dramatic increase in suicides in my area because the troubles have been very difficult for tobacco farmers. We just cannot say that on two points they can all of a sudden move into other areas because the opportunities are not there.

We cannot say that governments should not listen seriously to the concerns of these farmers because first and foremost the government encouraged them to get in there and, second, they are human beings and Canadians and people and they should be listened to.

The hon. member talked about Italy. I know that came from one of the anti-smoking groups. It put something like that out. It is a little different here. The licences under which tobacco companies manufacture are not Canadian. They are international. They can easily take that Virginia flue cured tobacco, grow that same tobacco in the United States and easily export those manufactured cigarettes to Canada. There are no trade rules in the world that a country could bring in to stop that.

It is a very, very easy process for them to take their business south, leaving Canada. Who would lose? The thousands and thousands of Canadian people who work in that industry and the Canadian tobacco producers, the 1,200 families in those communities, help support small town and rural southwestern Ontario and in other parts of this country. It is not that easy to do that. It is just not easy to say: "Okay, there is a solution in Italy and they solved it". It is a lot more complex than the member suggests.

There was a problem, it existed and I thank the hon. member for outlining that but we had to do something about it. There was not any easy solution. As the hon. member knows, sometimes before you get elected when you run through campaigns you have all the answers but when you get in here and you face the realities of governing and you face the realities of trying to solve some of these complex problems, trying to deal with the complexities of this country and the different interests involved, and at the same time trying to listen to Canadians and trying to make sure that what you are doing represents their views, it is not always easy.

We saw a problem. We wanted to make sure that smuggling problem stopped, that the whole underground economy came under control because we felt that was a serious problem and we felt that the only way to do it was to bring in legislation like this and to take a multi-faceted approach to the problem. There is not one solution to this problem, Mr. Speaker, as you know, coming from the area that you do. You have dealt with this problem over the years. The problem did not start on October 26. The problem was there for a number of years. We knew about it. We worked on it and I thought we reacted pretty quickly toward solving the problem.

[Excise Tax Act, June 21st, 1994]

And military invasions, whatever. However, I want to say to the hon. member who talks about enforcement of laws, before he came out with his proposal I am wondering whether or not he talked to the RCMP to see how feasible it was.

We did and the RCMP told us that this problem had grown so far out of proportion and had become so big that a million people could have been put out there to enforce it and the problem still would not have been resolved.

In fact we had to go beyond that. We took the common sense approach and attacked it from both ends. We said we were going to have to do more enforcement. We were going to have to make sure the penalties were increased. We were going to have to nip it in the bud and make sure the incentive to smuggle was not there. That is why we dropped the taxes.

In terms of lobbyists and the export tax I am surprised the Reform Party would support an export tax. All an export tax does is export Canadian jobs to the United States. That is very clear and that is why the Tories in the last government got rid of that export tax. They realized it would just export jobs to the United States taken by itself.

The lobbyists he talks about who lobbied against it were the Canadian farmers. They were the farmers. They were the people of the soil who came to government through me and lobbied very strongly against that aspect. They were the ones who lobbied very strongly for this tax decrease. They won that battle, not because they had high paid lobbyists on their behalf but because they had members of Parliament who listened to their concerns.

[Excise Tax Act, June 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I too am somewhat amazed that the Reform Party is supporting high taxes.

[Excise Tax Act, June 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member suggested our benches were empty on this side of the House. He might look at his side of the House.

[Excise Tax Act, June 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. It is a question that I continually asked the previous government. Frankly it did not do a heck of a lot to solve it. However we have taken the bull by the horns and are starting to address these

issues. It is not simple. We cannot just bring in legislation and all of a sudden think it will solve the problem.

As a government we have gone beyond the legislative process. First and foremost we must work with Canadians on the matter. We must work with local communities that are having specific problems in terms of smuggling. We have increased the enforcement aspect of it. We have put more police on it. We have a large border. We have the largest undefended border in the world. We have a particular problem in Canada to deal with. One of the ways to deal with it is through enforcement.

Another way is to make sure that when laws are brought in and criminals are convicted they get the punishment they deserve and we do not bargain off their penalties for other things. That is the commitment made by the government. We are not only bringing in tougher laws. We will make sure the penalties for people breaking those laws are in force, that they serve their time and the penalties are not bargained off somehow.

That is not easy to do. Changes to our criminal justice system cannot happen overnight. We are working on it. We will make sure the criminals are told they should not be involved in this type of activity.

[Excise Tax Act, June 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the questions. I will deal with the health question and with the second question as well. I do not think, as is being espoused by the Reform Party, that we have to militarize the Canada-U.S. border and send tanks into Akwesasne to deal with the situation. I do not think that is the solution.

I have always supported the idea that when we as a government move into certain areas we consult with the local communities involved. That is one thing we have done. We are committed to consulting Canadians to try to resolve the problem that way.

In terms of the health question access to illegal cigarettes was far easier prior to the bill-before we dropped the taxes and before we got rid of the smuggling-than it is today. Kids could buy them in every school yard. Right now because of the commitment of the government and the legislation the penalties for those in corner stores who might consider doing it is a lot greater. That is why the health question is addressed.

Young Canadians had access at any age. They did not have to show an age or majority card to a smuggler to buy cigarettes. They had that easy access in the school yard. They had it in every city across the country. It was not just in Toronto. It was not just in Montreal. It was also in downtown Calgary. Many parents came to us from those areas and suggested that something needed to be done. There was a problem. We took action on it and we did something about it. It may not please everybody but we saw a problem and we dealt with it.

In terms of dealing with the smuggling problem I agree, but the guns and alcohol smuggling problem is not a problem directly related to just reserves. It is a problem across the country. We made commitments to deal with some of gun control problems. The Minister of Justice said that we were committed to putting more resources toward stopping the smuggling of alcohol and guns. A lot of the problems in the country in terms of gun control is the fact that many of these guns are being used in crimes in major cities. They are not bought legally but are smuggled across the border.

We have seen the problem. The government has committed more resources, more time and more energy to resolving the problem and bringing in solutions. That is the sensible approach to dealing with the issue.

[Excise Tax Act, June 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to discuss this bill at third reading. I want to comment on a couple of remarks made by my colleagues across the way regarding this issue.

Comments have been made that this problem somehow started in October, some time shortly after we came to government. Our response to the problem was bringing in this legislation but we did not take into consideration the health question.

I do not have to remind hon. members where I come from. In my riding I represent a large number of tobacco producers but also the largest native reserve in the country. I used the term reserve in a somewhat limited way because I understand its negative connotations.

I first came to the House of Commons some six years ago, shortly after this problem started. In fact I have discussed it for a number of years. The smoke huts on the Six Nations are a long way from Akwesasne, a long way from where a lot of the so-called smuggling takes place. This started some four or five years ago. People started to use the tax system to their benefit.

This material did not just appear at one single point. It has been coming across the Canadian border for a number of years at a number of points in the east and in the west. It was always a major problem and it has significantly increased over the last two to three years.

Mr. Speaker, you come from an area where a lot of this problem is taking place, therefore you can attest to the fact that this has been going on in a serious manner for at least two to three years.

When the government brought in this legislation it wanted to also look at what many call the negative health effects of smoking. It looked at this issue in a very serious way. It saw that on every street corner in Toronto, Calgary, Vancouver and all across the country young Canadians had access to cheap cigarettes. That access was right on the corner at the school yard. Quite frankly over the last couple of years the smuggling networks got so sophisticated that it became a very good distribution system that was cheap and easy. Young Canadians had access to cigarettes and tobacco like they never had in the past.

This legislation tried to cut off that access to young Canadians. As a government, along with the provincial governments, we tried to make sure that the penalties imposed on the people who were selling tobacco to minors were greatly increased so that the risk of them being caught was also greatly increased.

By doing that we addressed the concerns of Canadians toward health and the easy access to cigarettes young Canadians were getting. By bringing in this legislation we have proven we have totally shut down the distribution system. We have made a system whereby they do not have access to cigarettes.

I agree with the hon. member who spoke previously that this has become a greater problem than just a tobacco problem, that it has moved into other areas. You know, coming from the area, Mr. Speaker, it has moved to alcohol, to guns.

If the hon. member would admit that a lot of what we have done in this legislation, a lot of what we have committed to do in other areas of enforcement, will take a big chunk out of the underground economy also.

What we have tried to do in this legislation is twofold. We have looked at the health of young Canadians. We have made sure that access to tobacco for young Canadians is cut off. We have addressed that health question. We have also made sure that the smuggling situation which has ramifications far beyond Canadians getting cheap cigarettes but has a lot to do with how native Canadians view themselves.

As I have said in the House before, I have had a lot more complaints from native Canadians, people of the Six Nations in my riding, about the smuggling situation than I did from non-natives. They recognized that the values being instilled by the people running the smoke shops and running the smuggling rings were not the values that their fathers and their forefathers had tried to instil in them.

I want to say that I have had a large number of people within the native community come to me and thank me for this bill and thank the government for bringing in this legislation.

I wanted to address the issue that somehow we had all of a sudden just reacted to the fact that we were not going to enforce legislation on native reserves. I do not think that is true. To suggest that smuggling was only taking place on Akwesasne is to ignore the fact that cigarettes were coming through all kinds of points across the country, including points in western Canada.

We have a very large open border. Unfortunately it is very easy to drive truckloads of this stuff across at any given point. We just do not have the sophistication or the numbers of people to check every single truckload of stuff that comes across the border. These smuggled cigarettes were coming in from every-

where. To suggest that it was just a native problem is misleading. It is suggesting something that is not the fact.

I will leave it at that. Mr. Speaker, I know that you have worked very hard on this issue and I want to thank you for your input. It was people who were dealing with it on the front lines, like yourself, that helped shape this legislation and helped create the solution to the problem that we solved.

[Excise Tax Act, June 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise and speak on this bill.

I represent an area that has a large number of tobacco producers in it. They look quite favourably on this bill and what it will do to rationalize and give the industry which has been attacked over the years in a number of different areas more certainty on where it will go in the future.

I want to talk about a particular part of the bill. I follow this issue quite a bit. One of the areas this bill deals with is how tobacco is processed and gives a definition of a processor and manufacturer.

In section 182 on page 61 of the bill is a definition of tobacco manufacturing which states "means any activity (other than farming) relating to the manufacture or processing in Canada of tobacco and tobacco products". That could pertain to almost anything. It could pertain to people who make cartons or people

who make the paint that goes on the cartons that we put the tobacco in.

In fact there is one company in my area of Haldimand-Norfolk that is hit by this. It does not manufacture cigarettes. It had nothing to do with the smuggling situation. It is an independent group, not tied in with any of the big three. The intent of the legislation, other than to reduce taxes to deal with smuggling, was to hit back at the big three, those the government felt might have had, remotely, something to do with the smuggling that was going on cross border.

This small independent company processes tobacco, meaning it buys from the tobacco board, threshes the tobacco, bundles it up and ships a good majority of it overseas to export markets. It had nothing to do with the problem but because of the way the legislation is written it is caught up in it.

I ask the Minister of Finance if he could look into the situation of these small companies and see what he can do to help alleviate the taxes. They have to compete internationally with other companies and I do not see why they should be caught up in this legislation.

I believe the intent of the legislation is not to catch them, but unfortunately it will. Therefore I call on the government today to do something about it.

Finally, I will conclude by saying that I support Bill C-32. It will do what it is intended to do; stop the smuggling.

The 200 some odd smoke huts that were throughout Haldimand-Norfolk and on the Six Nations reserve are no longer there. Only a few of them are left. This bill has already done what it was intended to do. It has sent a strong message that we will not support this type of activity. It has done a lot for the communities, especially the Six Nations. A number of the elders have come to me to say thanks for bringing forward legislation like this. They feel that sort of activity should not happen on the Six Nations. They feel anything they can do to help us out in this regard they would gladly do.

There are other parts of the the bill which I obviously do not support, such as the export tax, but I can say quite heartily that I and the producers in my area support this bill as a whole.

[Environmental Week, June 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, June 5 to 11 is Environmental Week. On the occasion of Environmental Week I extend an invitation to all hon. members and to all Canadians to be good environmental citizens and to take part in this week's activities.

As a result of numerous activities and exhibitions being held nation-wide, Canadians will have the opportunity to familiarize themselves with healthy environmental practices.

We as parliamentarians have a great responsibility not only to Canadians and our immediate neighbours but to the whole world to promote environmentally responsible policies and to make sure that the laws that we pass in this House are sustainable.

The Canadian public also has a responsibility because the laws and the regulations we pass both here and in our provincial legislatures will not work unless there is public involvement.

Environmental Week re-emphasizes the importance of public participation.

The theme of this year's Environmental Week is "This Week Every Week" or en français, "cette semaine et toute l'année" should be underlined. Environmental Week is a fun week and I encourage all members-

[Voluntary Firefighters, June 1st, 1994]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the voluntary firemen's tax exemption from $500 to $1,000 in order to account for inflation and recognize the value of their services to the community.

Madam Speaker, within the wording of this motion, somehow something missed my recognition. What it says in the wording of the motion is: "amending the voluntary firemen's tax exemption". As we all know, across rural Canada we no longer have only firemen. We also have many firewomen across the country. It is a generic word.

I want to bring to the attention of all hon. members that many of our fire brigades now include women and they provide a very responsible and important role within those fire organizations.

It is my pleasure today to stand and to talk about Motion No. 193. This motion, although deemed not votable by the House management subcommittee, recommends that the government consider the advisability of amending the voluntary firemen's tax exemption from $500 to $1,000 which I think puts it into the context of inflation and speaks very well to the services that these firefighters provide to our rural communities.

There is no question in the minds of anyone in the House about the exceptional work done by volunteer firefighters. My motion tries to pay special attention and tribute to these men and women in recognition of their dedication and selfless service to their communities.

Volunteer firefighters serve communities with very little compensation. Generally they are given honorariums that cover out of pocket expenses incurred while dealing with fires and assorted emergencies and in dealing with training sessions. I am confident that there is no one in the House who will disagree with me that this remuneration is worth every penny they get.

The Income Tax Act exempts the first $500 of allowances received by these volunteer firefighters, but in 1980 that was increased. It used to be $300 and it was increased to $500 in

1980 to recognize the growth of inflation at that time. Since 1980 it has stayed exactly the same as it is today.

Over the last 14 years annual inflation rates have increased as many of us know. In fact, most of this honorarium now is subject to tax. Unfortunately this effectively takes the expense reimbursements away from the firefighter.

In my opinion this is mostly unfair and that is why I brought forward this motion again this session. I brought this forward in the last House. Unfortunately at that time it was not a votable motion. It was talked out by the government members who used to be on this side of the House. There are one or two of them on the other side of the House now.

Volunteer firefighters provide an invaluable and vital service to our communities and form a solid protection base under which rural communities exist within this country. Not only do volunteer firefighters provide a service to rural communities, that is where they are mostly seen, but also to urban areas, as members know, where we have a number of volunteer firefighters.

There are almost 76,000 volunteer firefighters across the country. It is a significant number of people who have dedicated their time and service to their country and have really proved to Canadians what volunteerism is all about.

These volunteers spend many hours in training and on the upkeep of their fire stations, the care and maintenance of their fire equipment, all without any remuneration. They drive their privately owned vehicles in response to emergency alarms. Their privately owned vehicles are also used to travel many miles to deal with training sessions. Many of these people spend a number of hours throughout the week in specific training sessions to help them in doing their job.

Frequently volunteer fire departments are the only service organization in a number of communities across this country. They are the ones out there helping our children in distress, the ones out there on the roads dealing with the messy situation at a traffic accident which many of us would rather not see.

These are the people behind the scenes whom we do not see. They are in the face of these tragic situations, dealing with them. They are the ones raising money for community halls and community centres. They are the ones in small towns across this country who are the backbone of volunteer work in these communities.

They are the people who really keep these communities going. They can be found taking all sorts of other roles within communities such as organizing hockey and baseball teams, community garage sales and fund raising for many important community events.

It would hardly seem right when it is remembered that in many volunteer fire departments the practice is to pool those moneys received from this disbursement of a lot of their hard work and labour. A lot of times this pooled money is put back into the firehall.

As members know, in many rural areas money is not available to provide some of the needed equipment. A lot of time the reimbursements they get for some of their own expenses go back into these community halls, into their equipment and uniforms. Basically our rural firefighters and our volunteer firefighters are paying for the service that they provide to our communities. Obviously these men and women are dedicated volunteers as has been stated and they take great pride in their communities. I believe it is only right and proper for the government to recognize this contribution and that is why I brought this motion forward.

Let me stress once again that these men and women, these very proud Canadians, are giving freely of their time and energy and have put their lives on the line for many Canadians.

I had the opportunity of going into a fire with some of my local volunteer firefighters. There are 13 in my area. They took me into a burning house all packed up in a training exercise. They showed me what it was like, what their lives were like, on many occasions. I was scared. It was a very scary, very tough situation, and it really gave me a good sense of where these people are coming from on a daily basis.

I do not feel that they have been recognized at all for this service and I am not suggesting in any way that these people want special recognition. In fact, a lot of them would wonder why I am up here trying to give them more money because most of them in the earlier years did not even use up their full compensation. It is an important thing. As a House we should recognize it, for recognition is long overdue.

We have seen the effects in the recessionary years across this country. More and more communities are turning to volunteer firefighters to provide these essential services. As I said, the money is not there and how much would it cost Canada if we had to pay firefighters instead of relying on the generosity of volunteers?

There can be few people in this country who do not know, who have not been directly affected by these volunteer firefighters. More now than ever we need to strengthen and expand the forces to fill the gaps that are occurring because of the lack of services provided because of the downturn in the economy.

I put it to this House that the costs involved in providing this increase are small compared with the savings made in terms of

human lives as well as dollars. I suggest that this House would save greatly by voting this increase to volunteer firefighters.

As I mentioned earlier, this motion unfortunately like many motions across the House because of the archaic nature of our Private Members' Hour is not votable and I know that is a problem for a lot of members across this House. In this debate today I hope at least that members in this House will recognize the important role that volunteer firefighters provide to our communities.

I hope that all Canadians who are listening to this today will give a pat on the back to their local firefighters.