Jim Silye

[Tobacco Act, March 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would answer that question in this way. First, it has been quite clear, if one reads the bill, that sponsorship has not been banned or abolished. I wonder if the member understands what is in the bill. Sponsorship has not been abolished. The amount of space that can be put on a sign has been reduced. The fact that one cannot have the whole sign but only a bit of the sign does not mean that sponsorship is abolished. The tobacco companies can still sponsor these races and participate. Therefore, that issue has been somewhat misrepresented.

The quickest way to get people to do something is to tell them they cannot do it. I do agree with the member on that issue. If we tell young people they cannot do something, their curiosity is perked and they will want to know why. They are curious and therefore will tend to try it. We can never stop that because it is human nature. However, the only way to combat that is to educate the children and make the product more unavailable and inaccessible to them until they are adults.

We must tell those parents and anyone listening to me now that if you smoke and you have children, let your children know what is good or bad about smoking and do not let them smoke until they are of age. If the parents do that then they will have done their part. The children are then making an informed decision. We should have the right to chose the poison of your ilk because that is, after all, what we get if we are Canadians. We have individual rights and human rights. We are born with certain rights and we have the freedom of choice.

However, we have to educate people that by choosing this way or that way, these are the consequences. I am sure that the minister will also spend some money in education. Just like Alcoholics Anonymous, there are tobacco recovery networks out there that will help those people who want to quit. It is an addictive, strong habit and those who want to quit cannot. We have to help those people as well. That is our job and the job of government.

This is one example where I see that this bill is a much bigger issue than just tobacco. It is a balancing act. With respect to all the sponsorships to all the sporting events in Quebec-

[Tobacco Act, March 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, in Canada we have guaranteed rights and freedoms except when it comes to any activity ending in i-n-g. Then we have governments that interfere in our every day lives in the name of a better good with new regulation and laws.

Bill C-71 is an example of a much bigger issue than just tobacco and smoking and who and where it can be used. It is also about rights and responsibilities.

Before I elaborate, let me state that because I agree with the intent and target of the bill to help care for, educate and protect one's minor children, a big responsibility of all levels of government, I will vote for and support the bill.

It will restrict advertising in magazines with less than 15 per cent youth content. No advertising will be allowed on billboards and bus shelters, but it will be allowed in areas and places restricted to minors. Displays will be restricted in retail outlets and no vending machines will be allowed in public places.

Finally, the one that bothers the tobacco industry and of course the Bloc members, is the limitation being placed on sponsorships where the space occupied by an ad cannot exceed 10 per cent of the surface area.

These regulations will not stop young people from smoking. They will be a deterrent, but they are only a step in the right direction. What is needed is education.

There should be funding for legitimate organizations, such as the Neighbourhood Tobacco Recovery Network, which is active across Canada. It reaches out to aboriginals. We must teach young females that smoking does not keep them thin. I believe that is why a lot of young females smoke. They believe it keeps them thin.

I encourage the minister to start investing in schools, in groups, in hospitals and in other places where we can educate and give all concerned the proper facts from which to make an informed decision.

That brings me to the bigger issue. I quote from a paper on civic responsibility in Canada which was prepared by the Library of Parliament on August 22, 1994. It states:

In Canada -individual rights are both entrenched in the Constitution and safeguarded in legislation at the federal, provincial and territorial levels. While it is generally accepted that with these rights come corresponding duties, individual responsibilities do not appear at the forefront of Canadian society to the same extent as individual rights. Moreover, it is not simply the protection and advancement of individual interests which form the basis of civic responsibility. There is also the broader type of public duty to advance the common interest or good. Responsibility from this perspective involves contributing to the construction, maintenance, transformation and improvement of the community as a whole.

Given that both rights and responsibilities are an essential condition for the normal functioning of any society, many people feel that more emphasis must now be placed on public responsibilities in order to recognize, preserve and strengthen Canada's social fabric.

This is the part I like:

A balance must always be maintained between individual liberty, the liberty of other individuals and the reasonable demands of the community.

Seeking this balance is what divides Canadians. Seeking this balance is what is pitting tobacco industry manufacturers, retailers, political parties and provinces against one another. It is a tough problem to solve. The bigger issue is encroachment into the area of rights and freedoms. However, sometimes we forget about responsibilities.

I submit that while young people are definitely influenced to smoke through advertising and accessibility, this bill has not and cannot prevent the two biggest causes. I believe that my colleague from Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt who just spoke has underestimated the value of advertising. It has a huge influence on people. That is why companies and retailers spend billions of dollars on advertising. They do not just target the people who use their product, they target non-users to show them the kind of lifestyle they could live.

Advertising is a big factor which the bill addresses. I support that measure. However, the two biggest reasons that cause young people to smoke, which the bill does not and cannot address, but which I will mention because it pertains to the responsibilities of people in society, are the adults and parents who smoke. Kids see adults smoking everywhere. The adults tell their kids: "You cannot smoke. Do not smoke. You are too young. It is not good for you". However, when the children see adults doing it, what influence does that have? I do not know how to combat that, but it is there.

The second reason young people smoke is peer pressure, to be in, to be accepted. Every generation goes through that. We all went through it when we were younger. We all rebelled against the older generation, to which I now belong. Young people like to rebel. I am 50 years old and in the three or four generations I have been aware of smoking was one way to rebel. That will continue.

However, we can combat that through education and better information on the effects of smoking and the higher degree of addiction for cigarettes versus alcohol. All those statistics are important. Maybe one good cure is to take an underage person out behind the barn somewhere and give him a cigar or make him smoke a half a pack and let him get green in the face. That will cure that person. According to one Bloc member if you have one cigarette you are addicted for life and you have to have another one after five minutes.

Those are some of the issues in terms of this bill that will not really be able to solve youth smoking. We know it is going to continue to exist. It is important to find that balance especially with something that is legal. Smoking is legal and we have to remember that. The government is trying to both huff and puff and suck and blow at the same time. When it is doing that it has to be very careful to balance all aspects of individual rights, corporate rights, citizen responsibilities, civic responsibilities and the cost to our society in terms of the health, opportunity and the loss of freedoms.

This issue is also about money. There is a thriving and healthy industry called the tobacco industry. It generates huge profits and it also pays taxes. Governments collect these taxes and reinvest them.

I had one constituent write to me on this issue and I said I would mention it the next time I spoke to this bill. The problem is that some of these things like smoking and drinking have an impact on those taxpayers who do not smoke and drink because it is their tax dollars that are going to subsidize those who are sick in hospitals, those we have to pay for because of the greater number of diseases that smoking and drinking cause over and above what we eat, because eating also causes diseases. As I said, everything that ends in i-n-g seems to have a problem with it.

We do have a responsibility as politicians. I believe that this bill for the very reason that it targets a specific area, youth smoking, has tried to balance and finish a job that a prior government did in terms of regulating something that is legal. It is better to make it legal, to monitor it and regulate it than to ban it. If smoking were banned, then obviously there would be a lot of underground activity in that area. We would have a lot more criminals in the streets and people committing crimes. We do not want to make criminals out of people who want to smoke.

It is a tough act to debate. I am in favour of the targeting of better education for youth, making it less accessible for youth and so on. However, I in my heart of hearts as a businessman I do not like it. I feel very threatened by governments that try to tell me how I can market my product, how I can sell my product, when I can sell it, where I can sell it and how much advertising I can do. All these things that get to the other side of it bother me.

On balance I feel that the government and the health minister have made a very commendable effort to resolve all the differences. Listening to the debate today I was almost scared. If it is that bad maybe we should be doing something more serious about it. I guess we will keep it legal. We will continue to monitor, regulate it and try to keep it out of the hands of those people who are the most easily influenced, who can become addicted the quickest and the longest, thereby shortening their lives.

Therefore factoring in all these things, I submit that this is a bill that should be passed and certainly the majority of the Reform Party will be supporting this bill. I would like to congratulate our critic on this issue from Macleod who has listened to debate within our caucus very often and very reasonably. There were a lot of us who had different opinions and differing points of view. He certainly welcomed the debate and did a good job of bringing out all aspects of this complicated issue.

[Tobacco Act, March 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the bill is teaching me a lot about life in general. In Canada we have guaranteed rights and freedoms-

[Tobacco Act, March 6th, 1997]

Good advertising for them.

[Tobacco Act, March 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the member for Halifax. She said that this bill is a question of right or wrong. Could she elaborate on whether it is not also a question of individual rights and responsibilities?

We are here as politicians assuming our responsibility of trying to do what is in the greater interest of a greater number of people. The target of this bill is youth and trying to prevent them from becoming addicted to this habit.

In so doing, how far does one go before ending up stepping on individual rights, freedom of choice, freedom to choose to smoke or not to smoke, to drink or not to drink? These are, after all, legal products. How far does one go before ending up having to conclude that, if it is so bad, if all the statistics being put out today are true, why is smoking legal?

I submit that it is also individual rights and responsibilities. We are trying to address our responsibilities here. I am supportive of the bill because of its target. It is just a question of the other element.

I see what is happening in our society. Legislatures are trying to be so good at looking after all the problems that they end up going too far, intruding into people's lives and tramping on their rights.

What if we sort of twisted this and said maybe parents are responsible for their kids a little as well? Would she elaborate on the issue of rights and responsibilities?

[Supply, March 5th, 1997]

Yes, it did. Go back and look at the speech.

It included a suggestion that MPs look after their own pensions, which is no better than the private sector. Five per cent of that money should go into a pension if they choose to and five per cent matched by the government. It should be no better than the private sector. That is the pension portion of my compensation package for MPs. The Liberals can twist and bend all they want. If it is a choice it would be an investment.

The finance minister and this minister argue that the CPP increase to 10 per cent is an investment. If it is compulsory by the government it is a tax. If the rate is set by the government it is a tax. In opposition they called it a payroll tax. Now they are calling it an investment.

The government is very hypocritical. I question its logic on raising the CPP. There are concerns with the CPP. People are worried that money will not be there for them, but the logic is that the fund is $39 billion now. The deficit annually is about $1 billion and could go to $2 billion in any given year so the premium has to be raised.

Why did they overreact? Why did they not just raise the premium to 7 per cent? At the same time, because payroll taxes cost jobs, why did they not lower the unemployment insurance premium from the high lofty numbers? That fund has a fat $5 billion sitting in it which is soon to grow to $10 billion. They should lower the unemployment insurance premium, raise this other one if it is in jeopardy and keep the same two-year fund that is required instead of increasing it to five.

They have overreacted. They have increased the taxes too much. It is too great a burden on the economy to increase the taxes by that much. By not reducing the unemployment fund which they are

using to lower the deficit they will actually kill jobs. Their strategy of creating jobs is sadly lacking.

[Supply, March 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad I am in the House today. This gentleman keeps referring to salary and I was speaking about compensation when we were debated the bill in the first place.

I think a member of Parliament deserves proper compensation, but it should be above board where it is visible, taxable and clear. When I threw a number out as to what an MP should receive it included taking care of all travel expenses.

[The Debt, February 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, February 3, 1997 a miracle occurred in Calgary at the Rockyview Hospital.

My older daughter, Jennifer, delivered a set of fraternal twins six weeks premature but nevertheless perfect little bundles of joy.

Claudia Diane Sprau weighed in at 4 pounds, 6 ounces and was 17 inches long with lots of dark hair. Jackson Karl Sprau weighed in at 5 pounds, 2 ounces and was 18 inches long with a little less hair. Both babies and mother are healthy and doing well.

That is the good news that I bring today. What news do we have to give Claudia and Jackson for their future? I am sad to say that they already have a debt to pay of least $20,000 each because of 30 years of financial mismanagement by Liberal and Conservative politicians.

Since I allowed some of this to happen by not paying attention to who I voted for in the past, I will probably have to help them out with my greatly reduced senior's pension that the finance minister has promised me.

[Tobacco Act, February 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on this bill as well. I would like to say from the outset that I support our party's position on this bill in trying to encourage young people not to smoke and enhance the public awareness of the dangers of smoking.

But I find myself at odds with a few facts. The one thing wrong with this bill that I feel Canadians should know is that it gives the government exceptionally strong powers in making changes.

The regulation making powers that are given are extremely broad. It is done through orders in council, governor in council. It has far reaching powers and it is all throughout the bill. It is pervasive throughout the bill.

What is wrong with that is if there are some objections or some concerns by the Canadian public then cabinet can just do what it wants without coming back to this House. This House is a place where laws are made. This House is where politicians should stand up and argue in favour or against certain bills. With this one particular aspect of the bill flawed the government nevertheless is proceeding.

We do support the intent of the bill but we are vehemently opposed to the manner in which the government has worded the bill and the powers that it gives the cabinet.

The reason the government has done that is it feels that if there is a challenge in the courts about the legality or illegality of any aspect of this bill, then it can quickly huddle together, make changes, make amendments and then proceed with life.

I do not think that is how governments should be run. I do not think that is how our laws should be made. Our laws should be made subject to scrutiny by members of Parliament all across Canada who can debate ideas back and forth. That is a serious flaw in this bill.

This bill, when we really think about it, is all about money. It is about money for the government from the revenues it makes from

the taxes it charges on tobacco, for the tobacco companies themselves which make money by manufacturing, selling and distributing the product and the promoters of sporting events who ask the tobacco companies to sponsor their car events, tennis events, horse riding events so they can present something to the sporting public as if they are doing some honourable and wonderful thing.

Is smoking legal or illegal? If it is legal, what the heck is government trying to do? It is walking a fine line by saying: "It is legal. We will let you sell it but we will tax the heck out of you. We know it is bad for you. We know it causes cancer. We know it kills. We know that 70 per cent or 80 per cent of youth who smoke become addicted, unlike alcohol where only 15 per cent of the people become addicted". Why do we not have a debate on whether we should make smoking legal or illegal or restrict tobacco? Is it a drug or is it not a drug?

Let us get up here and talk about that. The government should not try to walk a fine line as if it is a sharing, caring Liberal government and it will look after the Canadian public. It knows smoking is bad for Canadians but it it will let tobacco companies sponsor events, and then again maybe it will not. The government will let the tobacco companies sell their products but it will not let them label them, they cannot put them in a vending machine. This is ridiculous.

Is smoking legal or illegal? Why do people not stand up and debate that in the first place? If it is legal, do tobacco companies not have rights according to the charter of rights and freedoms? I am not supporting or condoning smoking. It is a personal choice. If it is legal and it is a personal choice why does government not butt out? Why does it have to spend hours and days and millions of dollars in hearings trying to walk that fine line pretending that it knows better than the Canadian public what is good for them?

Is smoking legal or illegal? If it is legal, individuals have rights and companies have rights. Tobacco is a product that can be sold. Why is government interfering? If x number of people want to smoke, let them smoke. If x number of people want to kill themselves, let them kill themselves.

Why does government have to look after the youth and child poverty? Why do parents not take some responsibility in looking after the babies they bring into this world? Do they not have a responsibility? Should they not be telling them that smoking is not good for them, that certain foods are not good for them and alcohol is not good for them? Why is it that government has to do all these things all the time? It is pathetic.

I find myself at conflict over this bill. I find myself not liking smoking. I will speak out against smoking. I will say that it is bad. I do not like to go into a smoke filled room. I do not like the smell of my clothes after I have been some place where a lot of people smoke. I am a non-smoker.

Why is it that this government is now telling tobacco companies which are growing, manufacturing and distributing something that is legal what they can and cannot do? Why is government getting into our lives in such a regulatory fashion? It imposes everything on us: it knows better; if somebody comes up with a study, then that is it, that is the law and that is what the government is going to do.

I do not like that and I do not like the position it puts me in as a politician. When I think about it, why do I have to argue against the rights of a company to sell something that is legal? How can anyone argue both ways? How can government have it both ways? How can the government say it is looking after young people? Is it not looking after adults and the older people? To heck with them. They can smoke and they can die but the government will look after the young people. It is going to prevent smoking for youth.

It is hypocritical. If smoking is legal, it is legal. If the government wants to control it, then control it, but control it in a way that does not infringe upon the rights of the manufacturers.

This brings me back to my point about regulatory decision making by orders in council. The cabinet can do whatever it wants to shift with the changing times, to change with the mood of the people and whoever is suing someone or whatever the case may be.

That is not right. I would like to have an intelligent person on the other side who is in favour of this bill tell the Canadian public why the government cannot make a law which is black and white: Here it is, baby; you either follow it or you do not. Then if there are objections, it either stands the test of legality or it does not. Why can we not do that? I have had conversations with members of the health department. They say it is because they are worried that when they are challenged by the tobacco companies it will get kicked out of court and they will be two or three years behind the times and all the young people will start to smoke again and become addicted.

Why can the government not pass a law by saying here it is, this is the way it is, this is the way it is going to be, and it is legal. Is there not a problem? Is there not an issue on legality or illegality? What are we trying to do?

To skirt the issue the government introduces something which will set a bad precedent. It is a bad precedent to set because it will allow public officials when they become cabinet minister, to change the laws and rules without reporting to the House, without being held accountable and without allowing themselves to come under scrutiny.

My main point is that we support the government in its attempt to enhance public awareness of the health hazards of tobacco. We recognize the impact which it has on youth who are easily influenced and like to rebel and do their own thing. We should spend some time pointing out to them that tobacco is very addictive and they should be careful with it. We know it is not healthy, but it is their choice.

I have a problem with the legality or illegality and I have a problem with Bill C-71 in terms of how certain measures in the bill can be changed. That is my criticism of the bill. I want it to be clearly understood that we support everything which is in the bill, but that is one area which the government should be willing to delete. It should be willing to say: "Here is the law. Here is what we would like to do, and all hon. members of Parliament can either approve it or not approve it".

The government should not be playing games with advertising and how this product can or cannot be promoted. We are infringing upon the rights of others in trying to defend the health of Canadians. We are at odds; we are in conflict.

I wish the government would discuss that a bit so that at least I could understand it. If I am the only member of the House who does not understand it, I would still like to have the indulgence of the government. I would really appreciate the indulgence of the government to explain it to me.

[The Budget, February 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if I heard a question in there but I think I have a general idea of where the member was going.

I do believe infrastructure is very important. I did not say it is not important. It is one of the first areas we should spend the Canadian tax dollars we collect but it is when you spend it and how you spend it. It is an admission of failure by the three levels of government when all of a sudden because the federal government announces a plan they say that they have bridges to fix and roads to pave. For example, the mayor of Ottawa wants as much as she can get out of this infrastructure to build a hotel here. That is not what infrastructure money is for. It is more in the private sector.

The same for Calgary when they spent $9 million on the Saddledome. That was not what the infrastructure should have been for. That should have been done by private sector. What happened to the private sector? What happened to the risk reward relationship? As politicians if we get embedded with the private sector there is going to become a conflict of interest. They are not going to be able to say no. Which companies do you help? Then the marketplace is distorted.

The $800 million plan for the Canada foundation of the Network of Centres of Excellence is a good way to spend that expenditure money. It will be spread out over time, it will not all be in the 1997 budget but yet it is included in here. That is why I say it is against generally accepted accounting principles. Unless there are signed agreements with everybody on the $800 million, and I hope there is and I am sure the auditor general will let us know whether there is or not. Fudging deficit numbers just for the sake of the deficit is creating an illusion that we have money to spend. We do not. A deficit is a minus, albeit a $19 billion minus is a lot less than a $42 billion minus and it is a big improvement.

I compliment the government for reducing the deficit but I criticize the government and give it an F for not doing it sooner and faster when it knows the real problem is the debt. The finance minister gets an F because his rhetoric does not match the reality. The reality is that he took $7.5 billion from the poor for education and hospitals.

Look at what Ontario finance minister Ernie Eaves said. He said "they took away $2 billion and now they are going to give us back $200 million". He is mistaken if he thinks that $200 million that this government is giving back, both for infrastructure and on the social services, is coming soon and without strings attached, without rules as to how he has to spend that money. This fight is not over. He said he wants to help the disabled, the students and he lays out a big program but it is spread out over three years. Two-thirds of the money if not more is after the next election.

The biggest scam of all and the one I am going to predict right now is the one which will happen in the next federal election to be called for June. After the election has been called for June and after we hit the year ending March 1997 we will have a projected $19 billion deficit. It is not a $19 billion deficit. He knows it is not a $19 billion deficit. He could have said that as of today it is only $17 billion but he is not going to. He is actually going to announce a $16 billion deficit. He can now do a tax relief and he can promise this and that.

This finance minister gets an F for not matching the rhetoric with the reality.