Bev Desjarlais

[Tobacco Tax Amendments Act, 2001, April 27th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I am torn on that one having raised three sons, having been around a number of young people, having been a school trustee, and having been young and having started smoking. Sometimes the criticism of smoking is incentive enough for young people to think they should smoke because they want to take that stand.

We need legislation to disallow producers from taking any kind of cash payment or any kind of payment from tobacco companies to promote smoking. That is the issue. There are tobacco companies and cigarette producers which are feeding into movie producers and sponsoring them if they have smoking in their presentations.

[Tobacco Tax Amendments Act, 2001, April 27th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I missed sharing this little story with everyone and the member has given me the opportunity to do that.

I agree with the member when he said that people have the right to know what is coming, whether they are inhaling it, eating it, drinking it or whatever, so they can then make conscious decisions.

I want to mention the different tobacco packaging. A young woman goes into a store and asks for a pack of cigarettes without a picture of ugly teeth.

It is funny the way things work. It is enough that it just sickens us a bit. If we happen to break down and sit with smokers at a table and they throw their pack of cigarettes down, for everyone else at the table the package is enough to make them a little ill. We should go ahead a do everything we can do to make it that much more distasteful.

[Tobacco Tax Amendments Act, 2001, April 27th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, one of the things we can do is admit that we do not need to smoke. We can also encourage people not to smoke. We can let young people know that it is not a great thing. We can let smokers know that we do not appreciate them smoking in non-smoking places. I know a number of people who feel quite comfortable putting no smoking signs on their door even though it does not always go well with their friends.

As members of parliament, a radical thing we can do, if we want to see a generation of non-smokers, is make a commitment not to smoke. There will be those who say that it is easy for me to say that because I have quit, but the bottom line is that it has to come from somewhere. As a true representation of what we think people should be doing, we should all make a commitment to be non-smokers .

[Tobacco Tax Amendments Act, 2001, April 27th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the bill today. There has been much work done on behalf of the Standing Committee on Health. I recognize that the government is making efforts to improve the situation to reduce smoking among Canadians. Also, our health critic, the member from Winnipeg North Centre, has been very active and keeps us abreast of everything that has been going on.

I am not going to dwell so much on Bill C-26 as to the specifics of it. We are going to support the bill. Any incentive or anything we can do to decrease the opportunity for young people to begin smoking and to discourage people from smoking, is definitely the route to go.

I have no shame in admitting now that I started smoking when I was 12 years old. By the time I quite I was smoking a pack and a half to two packs a day. I could barely breathe when I got up in the morning. I did not have the guts to go to my doctor and say that I had a problem with my lungs. My biggest incentive to quit was not being able to face my doctor and listen to him give me a good tongue lashing over the fact that I was smoking and complaining about not being able to breathe. It took a number of attempts but I have not smoked for close to 20 years. I have had my moments when it seemed like a not so bad idea. Maybe price is a deterrent but I am not sure.

I certainly think we must do everything to discourage people from smoking. I have to admit I am truly concerned that this increasing will just not cut it. I have seen young people buying one cigarette at a time from someone down the street. For 25 cents a cigarette, children as young as seven or eight years old can pick up a cigarette from certain people they know.

We all know that video games, trips to the arcades and little hand held Game Boys are a lot more expensive than a 25 cent cigarette. Those same young people, who have money for those things, are the ones who are out there buying the cigarettes. They may not have to pay the $6 or $7 a pack but they can buy them individually a little at a time. It is not hard to find a quarter lying around in the shopping carts or wherever. There will be money available for that.

What is of the utmost importance is that we have proper education in place and that we have proper pharmaceutical supplies available, whether it be Nicorette or the patch. It is important to have these available to assist people when they do want to quit.

I tried to quit a number of times and I know there are people out there, even teenagers, who by the time they are 16 or 17 are thinking about quitting but they cannot afford buy a box of Nicorette. I am sorry to use just Nicorette but it is the only name that comes to mind. I am not giving them advertising and I am not getting paid for using that product. A lot of people want to quit but they cannot afford to buy Nicorette or the patch. They do not have a prescription plan available where they can go out and get it. As a result it makes their job to quit that much harder.

What I personally would like to see is a more sincere effort to dedicate dollars to education and to help people quit smoking. Maybe what we need is dollars or legislation to say to those tobacco companies that they will have to pay for all of the products that people who smoke need to use to help them quit. They should be required to pay for the oxygen required when someone's lungs get so bad they cannot breathe because they are responsible for it.

Tobacco companies, after all these years, now admit, for the most part, that they deliberately encouraged people to take up smoking and made it habit forming by increasing the concentration of certain chemicals within the cigarette. I would much rather see an increase in education than an increase in the cost of cigarettes.

To those of us who do not smoke, no one complains more about a smoker than someone who has quit smoking. I know a number of smokers who want to quit but who have a hard time quitting. They do need help and we need to provide that help. Increasing the price of cigarettes will not make their lives any easier. Granted, we should not hand cigarettes to them at will. They do need to pay a reasonable price because of the additional health care costs, not just for smokers but for others around them, associated with secondhand smoke and numerous other factors.

Children in homes of people who smoke are jeopardized. I wonder if at some point we may need to seriously consider whether we are injuring our children by continuing to smoke or having them in smoke filled places. We need to decrease the opportunities where people are able to smoke or where they inhale smoke, but slamming an increase in the cost of cigarettes on smokers will not do it. We need to have the dedicated dollars.

One of the issues that I get the most mail on, to the credit of Senator Kenny, is his bill. I have received literally hundreds and hundreds of letters supporting Senator Kenny's bill to ensure that dedicated dollars go to education. Recognizing that there is that support, we need to push along in those areas and dedicate dollars. People do not have faith that the government will use tax dollars for the benefit of health care, to assist smokers and those around them, and perhaps look after the environment.

Instead of creating a bullheadedness between smokers and non-smokers, between tobacco industry workers and those opposed to smoking, we need an alternative plan for those workers and alternative uses for tobacco other than smoking, so that we are not creating these head on forces. We do not need these divisions with smokers literally cursing every non-smoker around. This might make smokers put more of an effort into trying to quit.

I wish it could be quicker but I think we are a long way from a generation of non-smokers unless we seriously commit to educating people and deceasing the number of places where people can smoke. One of the best routes that we have taken which has had the most impact is having fewer places where it is okay to smoke. It is wonderful, even for smokers, to enter a place that is not filled with a haze of smoke. Our eyes do not get as sore. Smokers have to go outside for a smoke but overall even smokers appreciate the curtains and the ceilings not being covered with smoke. Smokers appreciate areas where there is non-smoking as well.

Those are the things that we need to be doing, along with possibly increasing the cost of cigarettes.

[Justice, April 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Justice Richard in his report on the Westray inquiry called on the Government of Canada to introduce legislation to hold corporate executives and directors criminally accountable for knowingly risking the lives of workers.

On October 5, 2000, the House concurred with the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights which supported introducing such legislation. Will the Minister of Justice act on the recommendation? When will she introduce this legislation?

[Day Of Mourning, April 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, April 28, marks the 10th year Canada officially commemorates workers who have been injured or died on the job.

The National Day of Mourning was the result of a private member's bill, Bill C-223, in the name of Rod Murphy, the former MP for my riding of Churchill, and was passed by parliament in 1991.

Three Canadian workers are killed every working day. Over 800,000 injuries occur every year. The pain and suffering caused by occupational accidents and hazards in the workplace affect everyone.

On April 28 we remember: the grocery store clerk who cannot carry her baby because of repetitive strain injury; a 19 year old blinded from a mix of chemical compounds he knew nothing about; the friends and family of the 14 year old construction worker killed in Alberta; and the father of three killed in a smelter explosion in Flin Flon whose co-workers are still recovering from seeing him burn.

Today for the first time parliament will hold a moment of silence to renew our commitment to not only mourn for the dead but to fight for the living.

I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, and all parties for agreeing to join together as a parliament in a remembrance today.

[Organ Donor Awareness Week, April 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to make this statement during Organ Donor Awareness Week. I have the longest living kidney transplant recipient living in my hometown and have seen the lifelong benefits of organ donation.

More than 3,700 Canadians are awaiting organ transplants. Last year alone 147 Canadians died while waiting for organs. Canada has one of the lowest organ donation rates among industrialized nations, with fewer than 14 donors per million people in this country compared to more than 31 in Spain.

A national organ donor awareness program would hopefully increase donations in Canada, but a national organ donor registry would be a further lifesaving measure for those awaiting transplant.

Preventing disease and injury is important. Quality treatment of illness and injury is important. Organ donors and a registry are the key to life for those less fortunate. I urge Canadians to become donors. I urge the government to bring forth a national tissue and organ donor registry program.

[Eldorado Nuclear Limited Reorganization And Divestiture Act, April 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that my colleague raised this issue. I had the opportunity in my comments but I had so many other things to say that I never got to it.

The situation he talks about with the Manitoba telephone system is one of the most despicable things the Conservative government in Manitoba did. We had a viable telephone operation that was beneficial to the whole province and people in my riding.

I have a very remote riding. Some 27 communities do not have all weather road access. A number of communities had a few phones and most often they were pay phones. MTS came in and that is where the pay telephone story comes into play.

The school and the nursing station got a phone and one other phone went in. These were not pay phones. The only pay phone in town was pulled out because there were now three other phones that everybody could run and use. That is the type of approach taken when profit is the only motive.

One of the partners in that process is now the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar. There was an open sale of MTS. The people of Manitoba ousted the Conservative government directly as a result of the sale of MTS because they were not happy about it.

It increased the cost of phone service on an ongoing basis. The cost of a phone has been increasing. The service is far less than it ever was. We had by far the best phone system in the world. Now there are problems after problems. MTS does not put any money back into the service. It is willing to sell it at whatever the rates and does not put the money back in. It is definitely a big issue.

[Eldorado Nuclear Limited Reorganization And Divestiture Act, April 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that Canadians do not want to see all of Canada for sale. They do not and that is the issue here. We had legislation in place and I see no reason that it had to be changed. I would have preferred seeing these companies continue as totally Canadian government owned, the way they were at one time.

We have legislation in place and these companies are doing well financially. Why is there a need to suddenly change it, unless it is to say that there is an open sale on resources in Canada?

It is an issue in the area of farming, but some provinces have rules in place where they have limits on the amount of foreign ownership allowed, whether it be in farming or in tourist areas. It is a concern right now in Nova Scotia where a great length of the coastal shore has been bought out by foreign individuals who do not live there.

That is the same situation with farming. If a farmer moves to Canada my guess is he will end up being as Canadian as most of us if he is farming that operation. No one would argue about that. We need that balance.

When we reach a limit we need something in place to make sure that other farmers or industries that may wish to sell are able to get a reasonable price for their property. Banff went through the same as far as foreign ownership is concerned. There are ways of doing that without selling our country.

[Eldorado Nuclear Limited Reorganization And Divestiture Act, April 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-3, an act to amend the Eldorado Nuclear Limited Reorganization and Divestiture Act and the Petro-Canada Public Participation Act.

I do not think there has been any doubt where the New Democratic Party is on the bill. It was indicated yesterday by speakers from our party that we intend to oppose the bill.

I just want to give a bit of a summary for Canadians who are listening to what is happening in the House. I am pleased to indicate that when I go around my riding there are a number of people who watch what goes on in the House, so it is important that we take the time to have some discussion in debate and to maybe let Canadians know exactly what is entailed in the different bills that come before the House.

The bill relates to the mandatory provisions in the articles of Cameco Corporation, formerly Eldorado Nuclear Limited and Petro-Canada. Bill C-3 was first introduced in the 36th parliament as Bill C-39 and subsequently died on the order paper with the dissolution of parliament in the fall of 2000 for that wonderful election time.

The enactment provides that articles of Cameco Corporation will have to contain a 15% individual non-resident share ownership limit for voting shares, as well as a cap on aggregate non-resident share ownership voting rights of 25%. It stipulates that the articles of Petro-Canada will have to be amended to allow for a 20% individual share ownership limit, while the aggregate non-resident share ownership limits will be eliminated.

In addition, the prohibition of the sale, transfer or disposal of all or substantially all of Petro-Canada's upstream and downstream assets will be replaced with a similar prohibition on the sale, transfer or disposal of all or substantially all of its assets without distinguishing between the upstream and downstream sectors of the activity.

I am sure that left a lot of people out there guessing just what the heck we were talking about. The bottom line is that once again it is the sell off of Canadian resources to foreign companies with no other party in the House speaking out against it except the New Democratic Party.

Yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources made some comments about it not being a big worry because there was only a certain percentage of foreign shares in Petro-Canada. Even though it could be as high as 20%, there are a mere 6% or thereabouts that are under foreign shares. We are going to open the door wide and say that we are for sale.

Petro-Canada, the last hold on any kind of control over that energy resource in Canada, is up for sale. We are going to throw it out on the open market. This is the last opportunity for any kind of control, as limited as it is, because the previous federal governments put it up for sale like they did with so many of our other very important national programs.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources indicated that he did not see it as a big issue, that he did not see anyone buying it and that it would still be controlled by Canada. People will have to excuse me for not having much faith in that because that was the same argument the previous governments used for CN and CP, and will probably be the same one this government will use for our airline industry. Little by little it is chipping away and saying that Canada is for sale. Canadians will no longer have control over our important resources and programs. Therefore I obviously have very little faith in that.

When it was indicated that I would get an opportunity to speak today, I reviewed the debates that took place yesterday. I was extremely impressed with my hon. colleague for Palliser and I want to thank him for his in-depth speech. If anyone wants to really get the true picture of what is going on, one needs only refer to yesterday's Hansard and read the hon. member for Palliser's comments, his experiences and the situations that are out there.

As I read his comments, as well as some of my other colleagues' comments, I also had the opportunity to read the comments of one of the Alliance members. I was shaking my head and thought that this is truly the form of the Alliance. It was the ultimate double speak that I had ever read at any one point, and I want to make reference to it.

I have been quite surprised that politicians literally speak out of both sides of their mouths. They are in favour of this or that because they want to use their householders or ten percenters and have everyone on their side. The bottom line is there are differences. We cannot always be on everybody's side because there are times when there are important issues and politicians want to be there for Canadians and support what is beneficial for them. A politician does not want to get every vote. There are principles involved.

I want to reflect on the double speak from yesterday. It was the member for Athabasca who was speaking. His comments were:

I am pleased to see that the legislation is mindful of the possible consequence of high levels of foreign ownership of uranium resources.

The New Democratic Party has always been concerned over the possible consequences of foreign ownership of our very important natural resources. The Alliance member is acknowledging that, but then goes on to say:

The lower limits on Comeco shares reflect across the board government restrictions on foreign activity in uranium mining.

He is saying that because we do not allow more foreign shares to be sold that is a real issue. That means we have to be concerned about foreign shares, but then we are concerned that we cannot sell them. He goes on to say:

While the Canadian Alliance is all for Canadian businesses having all the opportunities to succeed, we must also be conscious of the need to keep such potentially volatile resources within Canadian control.

He used the words volatile resources in Canadian control. Then his next line is:

The bill allows for greater flexibility in the selling of shares in Canadian companies, and I support that effort.

Has anyone ever heard more double speak in such few short paragraphs? It got better when he went on to talk about Petro-Canada and basically said much of the same thing.

I say to parliamentarians and to all Canadians that uranium is a volatile resource but so are our oil and gas resources. Are they not crucial resources to Canada? Should we not be concerned over the total sell off of those resources to foreign companies?

I wonder if members of the Alliance, Liberals or Conservatives believe that it is okay if they are bought up by Americans? There is a serious risk in selling off our resources in totality to any foreign company. We as Canadians must retain control of those resources.

I would like Canadians to recognize the type of doublespeak that goes on here and to emphasize the importance that the New Democratic Party places on having Canadians controlling our natural resources. We felt that way about our railways, our airlines and our water because they were serious issues.

When I hear this kind of doublespeak from members of other parties, I wonder how they would protect our water resources. Would they do things any differently when all they can see in their minds is the ideology of privatization? Their answer is that everything is for sale.

I am sure that if they could find out how to privatize the sweat off somebody's back and make a profit from it, and they do those kind of things anyway through their labour legislation, they would figure that is okay too. They believe anything can be privatized. It is time that members of parliament and all Canadians take a serious look at the drastic consequences of allowing open season on all our natural resources.