Dale Johnston

[Petitions, September 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 36 it is my privilege to present a petition which deals with sexual orientation. My constituents have signed this petition praying that the Parliament of Canada not amend the Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way that would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships.

[Excise Tax Act, June 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak on Bill C-32 on behalf of the Reform Party. Other members of my party had planned and prepared to make presentations on this as well but unfortunately they will not have the same opportunity as I have.

Last night we witnessed a Liberal interpretation of open democracy when they invoked closure on this and every other critical piece of legislation before this House.

Here we have another omnibus bill that tackles issues as varied as airport tax, meal allowance changes and the anti-smuggling initiatives. Today I will concentrate my remarks on the cigarette smuggling and taxation component of this bill. I believe that this is a step in the right direction. We should be educating the public about the hazard of smoking tobacco. I agree with the export tax on tobacco products.

We in this party are in favour of stronger enforcement of the laws against smuggling. We have a police force in Canada that is one of the best in the world. We have laws. Why this situation is so different from any other law breaker is really difficult for me to understand. Take speeders for example. Because people do not comply with the speeding laws is no reason to change the laws to do away with the speed limit so that people can drive at any rate they like. Instead we come up with different ways to apprehend these speeders and we penalize them for having no respect for our laws.

When we talk about compliance we have a problem now with smuggling east and west in Canada. It occurs to me that we are all too ready to enforce our smuggling laws east and west but we are very hesitant to do the same as far as other smuggling is concerned.

How much money do you suppose this government is foregoing with this new policy of the reduction of taxation?

The government's policy is to broaden the tax base. It has voluntarily given up hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue. If one reduces taxes on cigarettes across this country and foregoes those hundreds of millions of dollars worth of revenue, it would seem to me that in order for the Liberal government to reach its target of 3 per cent deficit of the GDP in three years' time, it will be compelled to make up this revenue somewhere else since it seems reticent to reduce its spending by any substantial amount.

I suspect that there have been many debates in this House and in the provincial legislatures that increasing taxes would not only bring in additional revenue from the so-called sin taxes but it would also be a financial deterrent against smoking. This reduction in the taxation on cigarettes seems to be a complete departure from that rationale.

This bill also increases the legal age limit to buy tobacco which I suppose is commendable but at the same time the government is making tobacco and cigarettes more affordable. Now that we are making it financially easier for people to purchase cigarettes, will we see an increase in the usage of an already overburdened health care system? Some members have quoted facts and figures on both sides, whether there is an increase in smoking or whether there has actually been a decrease in smoking.

It makes me wonder when we are quoting facts from Statistics Canada if they have taken into consideration the amount of cigarettes that have been smuggled into this country and consumed that do not show up on StatsCan's statistics.

I will take a slightly different tack. In my view, a very clear precedent has been set here. We have established that in order to deter smuggling, we must take the profit out of smuggling by reducing the taxation on whatever.

There is also a significant problem with the smuggling of alcohol and spirits into Canada. It is very easy to draw a parallel between the smuggling of tobacco and the smuggling of spirits. The price of a bottle of spirits in Canada is approximately double what it is in the United States. Eighty-seven per cent of the cost of a bottle of spirits in Canada is taxation. The manufacturer must produce, bottle, advertise, transport, pay all capital building costs and employees and take its profit out of the 13 per cent that is left.

Is it any wonder then that we have the smuggling of spirits north and south across our border. It seems to me that we are encouraging a new generation of runners here. The statistics that I have indicate that of the 17 million cases of alcohol or spirits that is sold in Canada today per year, four million of those cases are contraband. They reached Canada illegally. They were shipped out of Canada and smuggled back across the border.

We arrive at four million cases by communicating with provincial liquor boards, comparisons of per capita consumption between Canada and the United States and consumer surveys on consumption habits and Revenue Canada customs law enforcement agencies.

There has been quite a lot of discussion about what the law should be and the two tier system. Is there a law for one group and another law for another group? Perhaps that is a debatable point. There is no question that it is debatable. There is definitely a difference in how the law is enforced.

What we are looking at here is an enforcement problem. We should have gone to a more stringent enforcement. We have the laws. We have the police force. We simply need to apply it.

I believe that if we follow the rationale that the reduction in taxation is the route to go as far as discouraging smuggling of cigarettes, then exactly the same thing has to be done with alcohol. We have to improve the enforcement profile, as I have said, and we must increase the penalties for smuggling. I do not believe that reduction of taxation should enter into it at all.

I find it extremely difficult to support this bill in its present form. I do not have any intention of doing that at this time.

[Food Distribution In Canada's North, June 16th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate on the motion presented by my colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Jean. The motion asks the government to make food distribution in Canada's north more effective and more economical.

I could not help but notice that the member who spoke just before me must have done his research from exactly the same material that I did mine. His speech sounded a lot like the one I am about to deliver.

We in the Reform Party are always looking for ways to improve on existing programs. I commend the hon. member for his initiative in bringing this motion forward.

Since the 1960s the federal government in conjunction with the post office has made an effort to supply isolated northern communities with affordable fresh produce. Under the northern air stage program the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development pays Canada Post a subsidy to cover a portion of the cost of bringing nutritious and mostly perishable food to communities that have no year round road or rail access. Approximately 125 communities serving about 86,000 people are eligible under this program.

As has been referred to previously, in the 1994 fiscal year this food mail subsidy will amount to some $14.1 million. Of this, $13.6 million will be coming from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, with about half a million dollars coming from the Department of Health.

The residents of Canada's north face not only higher retail prices than we southerners but they also have a critical employment program. Most work in that area is, at best, seasonal in nature. The 1986 census showed that only 35 per cent of the aboriginal population 15 years of age or older were employed, compared to 60 per cent for all of Canada in the same age category. Of course a high unemployment rate means a lower annual wage and ultimately less purchasing power.

The high cost of transporting goods in the north, even with the government subsidized food mail program, results in higher consumer prices. As was also alluded to earlier, a family of four in these isolated communities in the Northwest Territories would have to spend between $260 and $280 per week just for a basic diet. That is at least twice as much as we would have to spend in southern Canada for the same diet.

A study by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development conducted in 1990 concluded that by reducing the merchant's transportation costs, the air strategy subsidy has been an effective means of keeping the prices of food and other goods in remote areas lower than they otherwise would be. The study also found that an elimination of the subsidy would likely result in higher social assistance costs, higher health care costs and an increase in isolated post allowances for government employees.

When the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development launched this study in 1990 there were no apparent alternatives. Today, as was indicated by my hon. friend, there may be a practical cost-effective solution for at least part of this problem.

As was also alluded to by the mover of this motion there is a corporation which is prepared to establish a food distribution network. I certainly do not want to propose one corporation over another but where there is one, there are likely to be others.

This corporation plans to supply food from a central distribution centre in Iqaluit which at the outset would serve some 38 northern communities. This unique Canadian enterprise predicts that the price of food products in the north could be

reduced by 10 to 20 per cent. This will be possible because of the company's plan to reduce transportation costs and because its purchasing power will enable it to negotiate lower prices and to pass the savings on to the customers.

This company expects to save on transportation costs by regrouping products and chartering aircraft that would carry up to $75,000 worth of merchandise per flight. While its plan initially is to be a food wholesaler, the company estimates that it can receive 88 per cent of the market share in two years by supplying perishable food products and other consumer merchandise needed by northern residents but not currently available at reasonable prices.

The overall cost to inaugurate the service is estimated to be some $1.65 million. Without going into too much of the financing it is safe to say that the company would probably need some government loan guarantee in order to get started. I think the operative word here is "loan". As was also mentioned by the mover of the motion, this company would create jobs for some people in the north and they also all are shareholders of this particular company.

What benefit is this for the Canadian government? The company's prospectus predicts initial savings for the government of up to $3.6 million. It expects to train and employ, as was mentioned before, about 55 local people.

Now as you know we in the Reform Party are strong believers in the free enterprise system. I am personally pleased to see that this group has taken the initiative to provide a better service to at least some of the isolated northern communities. It sounds like an excellent viable alternative.

If this group is successful, it is likely that other entrepreneurs will follow its lead. Then there would be no need for the Government of Canada to provide so much subsidy to Canada Post for the food mail program.

If this had been a votable motion, I would have asked that it be referred to committee. I would encourage our party to support this motion and refer it to a committee for further examination. Since it is not a votable motion, I would like to encourage the government.

I was very pleased to hear the member opposite say that the government has plans to review this whole program and, I hope, these proposals. Certainly what I would encourage is that the government look at every possible proposal to make the food distribution in the north far more efficient and effective as well as improving the quality of the food and ultimately the diet of the people who live in the north.

[Department Of Labour Act, June 3rd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to address this bill. It gives me an opportunity to discuss some of the serious unemployment problems in Canada and to determine if the government's response has been adequate and propose some constructive alternatives.

I would like to start by saying that the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve has proposed some fairly significant changes to the government's older worker adjustment program, one of which if passed would cost millions of dollars more and require the renegotiation of six federal-provincial agreements.

As well intentioned as this bill is, I think the consequences and the cost of implementing this bill have not been considered as long and as hard as they would need to be.

This bill would dramatically change the eligibility rules for the program for older worker adjustment, otherwise known as POWA. Section 5.1 of the Department of Labour Act gives the minister the authority to enter into agreements with provincial governments for the purpose of making income assistance payments to older workers between the ages of 55 and 65. Workers are eligible only if they have been affected by major permanent lay-offs and have exhausted their UI insurance benefits.

The federal government has entered into POWA agreements with six provinces: Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia. As there is a limited amount of money allocated to POWA agreements, the government establishes in each agreement a formula for determining what it considers to be a major layoff. The formula is based on the size of the city or community, the size of the company and is different in each federal-provincial agreement.

Here is an example of the formula used in a Quebec POWA agreement. In a community, let us say, of a million people you would require a number of employees to equal 100. If your community or city has 165,000 people then you need only 80 employees to qualify under a POWA agreement. As the size of the community decreases so does the number of employees.

Just to illustrate this, in a community of 50,000 people you would require 50 employees to qualify. In a community of 17,000 or fewer you would require 20 employees to qualify under this program.

Eligibility for POWA assistance is determined for each specific mass layoff and then for the individual employee affected by the layoff. Interestingly, between April 1, 1992 and December 23, 1993, 380 layoffs in the six provinces were designated under this program. Annuities were purchased for 3,500 older workers for a total cost of $104 million to the federal government and some $39 million to the provincial governments.

Officials have told us that the federal contributions to POWA have been capped at $50 million and estimates for 1994-95 confirm that the government will spend $50 million on POWA.

The hon. member is proposing in this bill to change this program significantly with huge financial implications and creating a potential problem in the area of federal-provincial relations. This bill would remove the discretion the minister has in negotiating federal-provincial agreements. Instead of leaving the determination and eligibility for POWA based on the size of the community, impact on the community, type of industry, size of the company and the number of employees affected, this bill would require both federal and provincial governments to include all companies with 20 or more employees.

This member's office has confirmed that it has no way of knowing how many companies or how many employees would become eligible for coverage under POWA as a result of the changes proposed by this bill.

The member is asking Canadian taxpayers to write a blank cheque.

How could anyone in this House support this bill not knowing how much it is likely to cost the federal government? Not only would this bill require the federal government to assume new and unknown program cuts, which would surely be in the tens of millions of dollars, the bill would also require that the province increase its contribution to the program for older workers adjustment.

Second, I would point out in regard to this bill in clause 5.1 that the amendment would immediately rescind all current federal-provincial agreements and require the Minister of Human Resources to renegotiate each one of them.

What would this mean for federal-provincial relations? What would this mean for older workers who are already receiving assistance under the POWA program?

This bill clearly creates more problems than it solves.

The Reform Party would like to thank the hon. member for introducing this bill. While we cannot support it, it is always enlightening to investigate a government program and see how the problems were addressed in the past, what was wrong with the approach and possibly how it could be done better in the future.

When we look at the program for older worker adjustment, we see a government using its powers to design a discriminatory program which supports older workers, subject to a completely arbitrary formula based on the size of the community, type of industry, the size of the company, and the age and employment status of the employee.

This means if I were a worker aged 59 living in Montreal, laid off from a company with more than 100 employees in the textile industry and had just used up the last of my unemployment insurance benefits, I would be eligible for assistance under POWA.

On the other hand, if I were a 59 year old Montrealer laid off from a company with 90 employees, not 100, in the textile industry and had just exhausted my UI benefits I would not be eligible for assistance under POWA.

While I admire the government's intent to keep the cost of POWA capped at $50 million, I am frankly amazed that the government would implement a program that is this discriminatory.

What about older workers who are in exactly the same boat but did not work for the right size of company or a specified industry? What about all the older workers who are in the same or worse circumstances because they worked for themselves all their lives? No one is coming around to them with a guaranteed annual income.

I believe that if the government is going to create a program for older workers who have exhausted their UI benefits and have little opportunity for employment, then it had better include all older workers, not just a few selected workers in a few selected industries in a few selected provinces.

While we may sympathize with the plight of older unemployed workers and while the intentions of the government and my hon. friend who introduced the bill are entirely noble, the fact is that many Canadians are facing tough times and would like the government to buy them an annuity until they reach age 65.

What would happen to these older workers if there were no pilot program? Many of them would find work eventually or would find work elsewhere. A number of them would rely on their families for help until they did find work. Unfortunately some may have to resort to welfare.

In my opinion, Canada is not short of safety nets. In fact, I believe we have too many. The program for older worker adjustments is an illustration of this point.

Specific groups of people who are hard pressed lobbied the government for help and the government, in a legitimate desire to help, creates yet another social program, another income supplement program.

In our view, Canada needs only one income supplement program and it should be administered through the income tax system. How much money would be saved by using this Reform approach? We say billions.

The government's social programs are an overlapping, confusing mess that few politicians and few Canadians understand. It is time to bring some common sense back to our social programs and to get our social spending under control. This is why I am here in Ottawa and I intend to do my best to do just that.

Let me summarize once more why we cannot support the measures in the bill. The bill changes the eligibility criteria for POWA programs, increasing the number of persons eligible for the benefit and as a result would dramatically increase costs both for the provincial and the federal governments.

Reformers were sent to Ottawa to save the taxpayer money not to find new ways to spend it.

The bill would remove the discretion that the minister has to negotiate provincial-federal agreements. While that is not necessarily all bad, it may not be in the best interest of the Canadian taxpayer.

The bill would require the government to immediately rescind and renegotiate six federal-provincial agreements. This would likely cause a problem not only in the area of inter-governmental relations but for older workers now and in the future.

I understand the member's motivation for presenting the bill. I am sure he has the best interest of the older laid-off workers in his constituency at heart and I commend him for that, but has he taken into consideration fully the Canadian taxpayer? What we really need is a complete overhaul of our social programs.

My colleagues across the way have set for themselves the onerous task of reducing the federal deficit to 3 per cent of gross domestic product in three years' time while maintaining an acceptable level of social security.

We still spend $70 billion a year on these programs, half of all the money taken in. If the Liberal government is going to reach the target it has set for itself, it has no alternative but to reduce program spending, not increase it.

We feel that if there is a problem for all older, laid-off workers, whether they work in a big company, a small company or for themselves, then the government should not be selective in which older workers qualify for assistance.

This having been said, we think the social safety net for older workers is sufficient and there is no need for POWA. To this end we will be making a proposal to eliminate the program through our standing committee under section 81(7).

[National Transportation Week, June 3rd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak in response to the minister's speech on National Transportation Week.

Transportation affects Canadians economically, socially and culturally. It provides Canadians with links to one another and to the outside world. Increasingly these links are under pressure through high taxation and outdated practices which are slow to change.

Canada more than ever must adapt its transportation system to the needs of Canadians and to the rest of the world. It is no longer acceptable that every province have different trucking standards for instance or that railways pay for Canada's highways through fuel taxes.

Changes must be the theme of this new government.

The minister has outlined efficiency, reliability, safety and affordability as the keys to his mandate as the minister of transportation. Thus far commercialization is one of his focuses. Commercialization is a noble notion which deserves support. It is not however going to solve all the problems that Canadian transportation companies and their customers face.

For too long governments have put up too many obstacles to transportation and their customers while trying to move them in directions that are contrary to the best interest of all people in Canada.

More than anything, this government should be addressing transportation problems with an eye toward reducing regulation and taxation. This applies at both the federal and provincial levels.

The failure of federal-provincial co-ordination manifests itself in the different transportation standards, subsidies and taxation structures among provinces and the federal government.

Canada still has time to improve its transportation links through federal-provincial co-ordination. However, the government is slow to address this problem. It is no longer adequate to blame one another for failure to achieve agreement.

It is important to note that the minister did not mention highways once throughout his speech. Canada's highways are for the most part in disrepair. They are in disrepair because of the failure of government to recognize three things. First, the federal government's co-operation is the key to an integrated Canadian transportation system. Second, users must pay for the services they receive. Third, the private sector is more efficient at providing transportation services.

Canada's economic deficiency in large part is directly tied to its efficiency in transporting goods and people. A clear example of this is when Canada entered into trade agreements without making the necessary improvements to our transportation system to compete with the Americans, the Mexicans and the rest of the world.

How can Canada compete if it is unable to transport its goods and its people to markets which are looking for the services? Now is the time to make the necessary changes to improve our transportation links and the barriers which stifle growth. We cannot wait any longer.

The government made some changes toward these goals. It has entered into agreements with Mexico to improve transportation links between the two countries. This process must contin-

ue. The first step toward this goal is the re-opening of the open skies negotiations with the United States, an agreement that is of vital importance to my constituency.

The minister must realize that the 1974 federal-provincial bilateral air agreement with the United States is inadequate and must be updated. The efficiency of Canada's air transportation system is dependent upon it. If airline customers demand a direct flight from Ottawa to Washington why is it not provided?

The Association of Canadian Airport Communities estimates that an open skies agreement costs as much as $10 billion in annual economic benefits and would create as many as 250,000 new jobs. The announcement earlier regarding the 90,000 government-created infrastructure jobs in my opinion pales by comparison.

The government's failure to move forward on an open skies agreement is very costly to Canadians.

It is not unusual that the minister makes reference to the need for an efficient and reliable transportation system. Ministers of Transport have been using that line for a long time but we have seen very little action to bring about such a transportation network. In particular the movement of grain has proven to be inefficient and unreliable. A strike at the west coast, ever-increasing demurrage charges and a shortage of hopper cars has shaken what little faith Canadian farmers had in the grain transportation system.

The Grain Transportation Agency which falls squarely within the purview of the Minister of Transport and handles the allocations of grain cars was shown to be completely incompetent before joint committees of agriculture and transport. Indeed the committee recommended that in the short term the GTA be scrapped in favour of a single person working to allocate grain cars.

The minister has taken no action with respect to the GTA and it is now this minister working toward an efficient and reliable transportation system. Is this how he plans to accomplish it? Far be it from me to question the $14.7 million budget of the GTA.

The present inaction of this sector of transportation is damaging to our global reputation as a leading and reliable exporter of grain.

I would also like to take issue with the minister's remarks regarding the department's assurance that it will uphold safe transportation standards, rules and regulations. The Transportation Safety Board is a major player in formulating and revising transportation safety regulations. However, two months ago a review of the TSB found its operations to be less than adequate. Indeed, the review suggested that serious flaws were evident as a result of internal bureaucracy, excessive secrecy, and a reluctance to question government regulations.

By way of example the review found that in 1992 a ferry loading accident and a CN derailment both should have gone to a public review. Further, on May 18, 1994, the TSB recommended the wearing of flotation devices in float planes during all phases of take-off and landing, a recommendation described by industry officials as futile, unenforceable and even dangerous to the occupants of the float planes.

Evidence continues to mount that the Transportation Safety Board established to help ensure the safety of travellers is actually unable to carry out its most important mandate.

This government has yet to overhaul the Transportation Safety Board. How many more Canadian travellers will have to be put at risk before this government establishes reforms to the Transportation Safety Board? Reform should be forthcoming if this minister is serious about his responsibility to safe and secure transportation standards, rules and regulations.

The challenges are formidable and the changes needed are numerous. Transportation in Canada has done well in spite of the barriers and taxation levels of the federal and provincial governments. Canada must find new ways to adapt to a competitive world and transportation will lead the way.

[Petitions, May 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty to table a petition in the House today dealing with doctor assisted suicides. These 33 petitioners are in favour of doctor assisted suicides. Therefore, these petitioners request that Parliament change the existing law to enable doctors to direct an act of euthanasia without fear of prosecution.

[Excise Act, April 19th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, after one false start maybe we will get right on with it this time.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-11 and I will for the most part agree with the substance of Bill C-11. I do think that it is extremely important that we educate the public about the hazards of smoking and in that way I agree with the bill. I further agree that the export tax on tobacco products is a step in the right direction.

However, it is the companion motion to Bill C-11 that I have difficulty with. I am going to speak along the same lines as my colleague.

What particularly bothers me about relieving the taxation on cigarettes and tobacco is the fact that we on this side of the House are particularly in favour of stronger enforcement laws against smuggling.

We have excellent police forces in Canada and we have laws that certainly cover the situation. Why is this so much different than any other lawbreaker would be? Let us take speeding for example. If we have a lot of non-compliance as far as the speed limits are concerned we never once consider abolishing the speed limits and allowing anyone to drive any speed they want.

In fact, we come up with some very ingenious methods, the latest of which is probably the photo radar. If you break the speed barrier you automatically have a picture of your licence plate taken and you get the bill in the mail. Of course you have no defence against that whatsoever.

Here we have a method whereby we can deal directly with the problem rather than saying that we are going to change the rule so that we will not be troubled with having to catch these speeders anymore.

When we reduce taxes on cigarettes it is a little like the gas war. When the guy across the street lowers his gasoline prices then that behooves me to lower my gasoline prices to stay competitive. It looks to me like we are actually getting into competition with these smugglers and in fact allowing them to set the government's agenda. I have a real problem with that.

The other thing about this companion bill is that we have no idea how much money the government is foregoing as far as reducing the taxation on these cigarettes.

We have heard over and over again that its policy is to broaden the tax base. By its own admission it would like to see the deficit reduced and that is either going to take reduced spending or increased taxation and the term the Liberals have come up with is broadening the tax base.

Here we have a contradiction to that. We have a voluntary giving up of perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars. If taxes are reduced in this area it would naturally seem to follow that they will have to be increased in other areas in order to come up to roughly the same level. That is a question in my mind. Where is this foregone revenue going to come from? Obviously it will have to come from somewhere.

As has been mentioned, any time that governments consider raising the taxes on the so-called sins, alcohol and tobacco, the sin taxes, it is always debated in this House and in fact right across the provinces in the legislatures. Often times I am sure the debate would go along the lines that we can certainly raise these taxes because people should have to pay for their sins and not only is it a good revenue builder but it is a deterrent for people to actually partake in the so-called sins of alcohol and tobacco.

We are doing two things by raising taxes on the so-called sins. That has always been the argument as well as the fact that we feel if you utilize tobacco and alcohol then the chances are you will need the health care system more than the average person, and so you should be paying your fair share in order to maintain the health care system.

That this bill increases the age limit for the legal purchase of cigarettes it is commendable. At the same time the government is making the product more affordable to those people who do desire to smoke.

Now that we are making it easier, or at least more affordable, to buy cigarettes are we in fact going against the argument that smokers should be paying a higher price for a health care system that would probably see more usage because of their habit? We are talking about a health care system that seems already to be overburdened.

In my opinion there has been a very clear precedent set here. How does this government plan to answer the question that my colleague has raised as far as the Canadian distillers' request is concerned, as far as lowering the taxation? According to my figures, the taxation on a bottle of spirits is in the 87 per cent range. That means that out of the 13 per cent that is left the manufacturer must produce, bottle, advertise, label, ship and pay all its personnel costs and take its profit.

What that also does is encourages a new generation of rum runners. It is a kind of revisitation of the 1920s. Certainly there is money to be made in the bootlegging of illegal alcohol.

Is this a problem in Canada today? I certainly believe it is. According to statistics that I think all members of this House received we estimate 17 million cases of spirits sold in this country per year. Of those, 4 million cases of 12 bottles each are illegally smuggled into Canada.

How do we arrive at the 4 million cases? It is through communication with the provincial liquor boards, the comparison of per capita sales in the United States, and discussion with Revenue Canada Customs and law enforcement agencies. Those figures are pretty reliable.

When we have a problem like this the solution, in my opinion, is not a really simple one. A step in the right direction is a get tough attitude with the smugglers. I think we also have to really increase the profile of enforcement. We not only have to make enforcement more effective, it has to appear to be more effective. We also have to increase the penalties on smuggling. I equate it with upping the ante, particularly when it comes to smuggling cigarettes and alcohol for the purpose of trafficking.

I think we could also add into that the smuggling of guns. Perhaps that is a subject for another day, and I hope to get an opportunity to speak on that at a later date.

Another thing that is ultimately important and that this bill does address is that we ought to be educating the public about the potential health hazards of tobacco. If we agree with the government's policy on reducing taxes and it actually reduces the incentive to smuggle then we have to apply it to the alcohol smuggling problem as well.

In conclusion, I believe that Bill C-11 has merit. In my opinion it would have been a better bill if it had the budget implications included in it. We are not sure just how many hundreds of millions of dollars the Canadian government has foregone in this instance and what the total cost of the program is.

I find myself leaning toward supporting this bill but I would have been much happier to see the financial implications.

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

[Controlled Drugs And Substances Act, April 19th, 1994]

I am on Bill C-11, Madam Speaker.

[Controlled Drugs And Substances Act, April 19th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to be able to rise today and speak on Bill C-11. At the outset I would like to point out that I am certainly not opposed entirely to Bill C-ll. There are some very good things in it.

I agree that we must educate the public as far as smoking hazards are concerned. I further agree that we should be placing an export tobacco tax on-

[Social Program Reform, April 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.

Is this minister truly committed to working with the provincial ministers on social reform or is this consultation process just a sham?