Antoine Dubé

[Excise Act, February 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as the official opposition critic for training and youth, I welcome this opportunity to present the position of the Bloc Quebecois on Bill C-11, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, the Customs Act and the Tobacco Sales to Young Persons Act.

As youth critic, I intend to address those provisions of the bill that are aimed at reducing tobacco sales to young people, because smoking is a very serious problem among young people, and is probably one of the worst threats to the health of young people today.

In fact, according to a study carried out in 1992 by Health and Welfare Canada, 38,000 Canadians die each year of smoking-related diseases. From 80 to 90 per cent of all cases of emphysema and bronchitis are caused by cigarette smoking. I say this because we often think of lung cancer, but there are other diseases as well. Thirty per cent of young Canadians and Quebecers are smoking today, about the same proportion as for adults. It is a problem that is not going away.

In 1989, it was estimated that young Canadians between the ages of 12 and 19 spent more than $436 million on cigarettes, and that amount is even higher today. Ninety per cent smoked regularly, and by regularly I mean every day. Fifty-eight per cent of young smokers had from 11 to 25 cigarettes daily. Seventy-five per cent of teenagers who smoked developed the habit before the age of 17, and the average age at which they started to smoke-surprisingly, this figure is going down-was 13, in other words, they started smoking when they were 13 years old.

Other studies have shown that a gradual decrease was reversed in 1989, when smoking by young people started to increase. The age at which young people smoke their first cigarette has continued to go down. In fact, according to the National Clearing House on Tobacco and Health, between 1965 and 1989 smoking by young people in the 15-to-19 age group dropped from 55 per cent to 21 per cent among males and 37 per cent to 21 per cent among females. That was the good news. However, since 1989, 23.8 per cent of all students surveyed said they smoked daily, and the percentage was about the same for both girls and boys. Smoking increased considerably in 1991 and 1993 among students, especially students in their first year

of high school, rising from 6.1 per cent in 1989 to 9.4 per cent in 1993.

Furthermore, according to several studies conducted by the National Clearing House on Tobacco and Health, there is evidence that links poverty, unemployment, smoking, alcoholism and drug addiction.

Education is also an interesting factor to determine the population most likely to engage in such activities. Still according to the National Clearing House on Tobacco and Health, 34 per cent of individuals aged 15 and over smoke, as opposed to 18 per cent of people with a university education. Thirty-six per cent of the poorest members of our society smoke, as opposed to 25 per cent of the wealthiest members of that society.

The economic measures put in place by previous governments in Canada since 1984 have had a negative social impact by increasing poverty among Canadians. Young people have been particularly affected by these measures. In 1990, 40 per cent of young Quebecers were living in poverty. Today, youth unemployment in Quebec has reached nearly 20 per cent.

However, I doubt that the figures I just quoted shed enough light on the real causes of smoking by young people. I believe more research is necessary for a more thorough analysis of a phenomenon that is constantly changing. We have every reason to be concerned about the future health of our young people and the burden on our health system.

It should come as no surprise to hon. members that the Official Opposition supports adopting measures to restrict tobacco consumption in general and by young people in particular. It should be a foregone conclusion for any political party that is concerned about public health. However, we do have a number of questions about the bill before the House today and these concern its chances of succeeding if the legislation is not properly enforced or if no effective measures are taken to achieve the bill's objective.

There is, first of all, the matter of the government's timing in tabling Bill C-11. It should be noted that this bill was tabled in the House of Commons two days after the Prime Minister announced, on February 8, various measures including tax reductions to fight cigarette smuggling.

We would almost think that, all of a sudden and off the cuff as we see it, this government was trying to give the impression it could solve every problem related to tobacco use.

Why dit it wait until February 8 to put into force the Tobacco Sales to Young Persons Act adopted by the House of Commons in third reading on February 12, 1993? That was a year ago, Mr. Speaker.

Another fundamental issue is the will or capacity of the federal government to enforce its legislation respecting tobacco use.

This concern flows from this government's apparent reluctance to fight propaganda and incapacity to react to this rising problem. Other pieces of legislation also come to mind.

In an article published in Le Soleil on February 13 last, we learned that, over a four-year period, the federal government had not imposed a single fine under its Non Smokers' Health Act, an act to regulate smoking in its own buildings, and this in spite of innumerable complaints and no less than 102 violations reported during the first three years of operation of this act. Not one of the violation notices resulted in fines. The only action actually taken seems to have been to hand out warnings.

As members of the Official Opposition, we are fully prepared to contribute to the legislative process, but the government still has to enforce not only the legislation Parliament passes from now on, but also legislation passed previously.

It would be interesting to know what steps the government intends to take to ensure compliance with certain provisions of Bill C-11, including those relating to the requirement to stamp all tobacco products individually and the manufacturing and sale of cigarettes in packages containing fewer than 20 cigarettes. All this is fine. It is one thing to say you want to do something, but how will you go about it? That is a very important point, as far as I am concerned. How will the sale of individual cigarettes be controlled? Cigarettes are very small and easy to hide. How will the age of the buyer be ascertained? Will ID cards be required? How does the government intend to check the age of cigarette buyers? As we know, since old Bill C-111 became law, the legal age is 18. But you still have to check the ID card, the age of the buyer. Of course we are wondering about the number of people who will be assigned to enforce the law-the minister touched upon the subject-as well as the costs involved.

It is very important to get an answer to these questions because it relates to a central aspect of this legislation, namely its enforcement. Incidentally, the minister did mention enforcement at the beginning of his speech.

Also, we think that this legislation should be coupled with positive measures to warn young people of the dangers of tobacco use and encourage them not to smoke. We must beware of the possible boomerang effect of a repressive approach on the young in that area as in any other in fact. Several educational

experts have said repeatedly that young people trying to grow up and assert themselves could be attracted by the "forbidden", in which they see a challenge.

I have recently consulted a number of young people and I am convinced that, as far as stringent measures to restrict the use of cigarettes among young people are concerned, they could be construed as a form of provocation, thus inciting young people to go against this restriction.

We must help our young people to become more responsible, not marginalize them even more by taking only traditional, repressive approaches to problems.

This bill, which would restrict access by young persons to tobacco products, should not be a reason for us to forget that young people experience drug and alcohol problems on a daily basis. According to Statistics Canada, 12 per cent of our young people have serious drug addiction problems.

The range of illegal substances available in high schools boggles the mind. On February 19 last, La Presse reported in an article that high school students can purchase chemical substances such as PCP for a mere five dollars per unit right on the school premises. Pushers offer to sell drugs to children often as young as 12 or 13 years of age, and the impact on their health and on society is devastating.

As is the case with smoking, young persons who start to use drugs early in their teens are much more likely to still use drugs as adults. However, drugs are not the only products that are easily accessible to young people. Alcohol is also readily available to them.

In another article which appeared in La Presse on February 20 last, it was reported that teenagers can easily buy beer at the corner store. The article is based on the findings reported in a study involving high schools students aged 16 and 17 in Montreal, and 18-year-old students in Toronto. Students in this age bracket visited about one hundred convenience stores and in 85 per cent of the cases, merchants sold them alcoholic beverages without asking for any identification. Mr. Speaker, this is terrible!

Clearly, not everyone is complying with the legislation governing the sale of alcohol to minors. Must we wait until the same thing happens with the Tobacco Sales to Young Persons Act?

We have said it before and we will say it again. We are not opposed to the passage of Bill C-11. What we are concerned about is how the legislation will be enforced.

Moreover, we must not be seen as sending a negative message to our youth. Considering that in the speech from the throne, the government announced plans to amend the Young Offenders Act, young people could possibly see in this legislation a message that society views them as the cause of the problem. In my opinion, young people represent the future, indeed, our future. It is up to us to ensure that the proposed measures are viewed in a positive light.

I have another question, this time pertaining to section 66 of the act respecting enforcement measures. As the minister mentioned earlier, this provision stipulates that police forces other than the RCMP can, if the minister deems it appropriate, seize tobacco, alcohol and vehicles used for illegal contraband activities. Does this mean that the police resources assigned to fight contraband activities will be increased significantly? If it does, how much will this increased presence cost?

I would also be somewhat surprised if the government were able to obtain as easily as the minister claimed the co-operation of police forces that do not fall under its jurisdiction. Most provincial and municipal police forces have experienced staff cuts and most claim to be stretched to the limit. Refusal to co-operate is not always a sign of bad will. When police forces have trouble just getting their everyday work done, it is difficult for them to volunteer to do extra work for another level of government.

It was also mentioned that seized property such as vehicles could be auctioned off. Will the proceeds from such sales be used to fight contraband activities and smoking?

Section 112 of the old Tobacco Sales to Young Persons Act, which relates to the immediate destruction of some of the articles seized, will allow the police to immediately destroy some of the articles seized, photos and videos liable to be used as evidence at trials. This could, of course, reduce storage costs significantly, but how do we make sure that these photos and videos are secure? That is a question that we should be asking ourselves.

Sections 201 and 211 of the act concerning the stamping of individual cigarettes will amend the Excise Act to allow authorities and law-abiding citizens to better identify products that have been taxed and those that have not been taxed, but we are told that these new stamping requirements for cigarettes will be prescribed by regulations after Bill C-11 has been passed. We hope that these regulations will be adopted and implemented quickly, in any case faster than those related to last year's Bill C-111.

Clause 7.1 of Bill C-11 will make it illegal to produce and sell packages containing less than 20 cigarettes. In our opinion, the effectiveness of this measure is reduced by the decline in cigarette prices. A pack of 25 now costs much less than a pack of 15 before taxes and prices were slashed.

Clause 7.3 of Bill C-11 is aimed at prohibiting the importation of tobacco products for and by people under 18. This measure is self-evident is we prohibit people under 18 from buying these products within Canada's geographical bound-

aries, but how can we ensure effective customs controls so that this measure does not amount to wishful thinking?

In conclusion, I would like to remind the House that the Official Opposition supports Bill-11, but we want to emphasize once again that it is important to take measures to enforce it. First by adopting easy-to-implement regulations and then by putting in place a better awareness program aimed at convincing young people that tobacco is detrimental to their health and that it can impose important costs on tomorrow's society.

[Prince Edward Island Fixed Link, February 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member gave his definition of referendum and plebiscite and he underlined that since, in this case, it was only a plebiscite, its results were not binding on the government, which decided nonetheless, as we can see today, to respect the will of the people and go ahead with the project.

I also wanted to talk about traffic. Having travelled several times to Prince Edward Island, I can say that the bridge will no doubt have the effect of increasing car traffic on the island. Everybody knows that to go to the Magdalen Islands, one has to

drive across Prince Edward Island to take the ferry at Souris. Does the hon. member know about studies on increased traffic that could alleviate our concerns about delays on the way to the Magdalen Islands? Can he comment on that?

[Social Security System, February 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I will simply repeat the message that this side of the House is desperately trying to send, namely that duplication and overlapping must end. As regards job training, if the present government delegated the responsibility, and the related budget, in accordance with the established jurisdiction of the provinces in the field of education, it would eliminate duplication and save Quebec taxpayers $250 million. In fact, by eliminating duplication and overlapping, the federal government would save a lot more than that, probably an amount equivalent to ten times the cost of running the Youth Service Corps for the first year.

If you include all the provinces, the savings would be close to $1 billion dollars. The $250 million figure for Quebec was never challenged. Nor was the $1 billion estimated by the other provinces. Such savings would be made by simply putting an end to duplication and bringing the program closer to the regions which, by the way, consult each other more and more and are better able to identify the training and employment problems facing young people, and that is very important.

Moreover, the problem with the Youth Service Corps is that it creates yet another structure and, of the $10,000 which will supposedly be allocated for young people, $4,000 will be reserved for administration purposes. It is a very good idea to set up a program to help young people, but such a measure should not be an excuse to create a new structure absorbing $4,000, or 40 per cent of the amount allocated. I believe that all sides in this House should agree to avoid creating new structures and instead strengthen social programs by using existing ones.

We also say this to the government: "Respect your areas of jurisdiction; respect the areas of jurisdiction of Quebec and of the other provinces". By simply doing this, savings will result.

[Social Security System, February 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question. Obviously, if we were not in a particularly tight financial situation, an experiment like Katimavik would be entirely praiseworthy, and I agree with what he just said.

However, when we compare the need for personal development and experience, travelling and all that with the other needs of youth-needs that I have described in the first part of my speech-young people who are living in extreme poverty, who are desperate to get some kind of occupational training after dropping out of school and then after a while want to get into the labour market and still do not have the proper training and experience they need, when we compare that with the experience of going to another province or another part of one's own province to do the kind of things described in the Youth Service Program such as cleaning up the banks of a river or doing various jobs to beautify the environment, we realize there is no future in cleaning up the environment with brooms and shovels. It does not provide a direct link with the labour market. This kind of work tends to be done by volunteers rather than employees. These jobs are typical volunteer work. In my riding, civic-minded residents do this kind of work for a couple weeks in the spring as volunteers. In fact, it is all part of environmental awareness.

It may have worked from 1980 to 1986. Perhaps the financial resources were there at the time, but we should remember that even in its heyday, the number of young people involved in Katimavik did not exceed 10,000, at a cost of $10,000 per person.

You may consider this is a stiff price to pay for the experience of living in another province for nine months, as described in the youth service program, Sir-oh, I am sorry-Mr. Speaker, since I am supposed to address the Chair while trying to get the hon. member's attention. Trips and room and board are expensive.

So if we consider other training needs, it seems to me that we must get our priorities straight. If it were up to me personally, obviously I would be more inclined to favour those who will have to enter the labour market. And I would do that because I have looked at various reports and heard the demands of youth organizations which are saying: jobs come first.

During the election campaign and in the throne speech, the Liberal Party told us that jobs came first. Occupational, recreational, leisure and cultural activities are all very interesting, but not in the financial situation we have today.

[Social Security System, February 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as the education and youth critic for the Official Opposition, I wanted to take the opportunity afforded by this debate on social programs to draw the attention of hon. members to the alarming situation prevailing among young people in Canada and in Quebec.

In Canada, to recall a few statistics, 17.5 per cent of young Canadians between the ages of 18 and 24 are now unemployed, which means more than 600,000 young people; 30 per cent do not finish high school; 51 per cent of high school graduates earn less than $10,000; and only 11 per cent earn over $20,000. More than two million young people are living in poverty. Furthermore, 12 per cent have serious drug problems.

Since the government has often said it wanted to give Canadians and Quebecers renewed hope and dignity, it will have to do something about these alarming statistics. After all, our young people are our future, are they not?

Another disturbing phenomenon is the increase in violence and intolerance among young people. According to the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, the number of young people accused of violent crime has increased by an average of 14 per cent annually since 1986. Considering the problems we mentioned earlier, this should come as no surprise.

In the past weeks, a number of members raised the issue of stricter treatment of young offenders. I agree it is necessary to send a clear message to young criminals. Their crimes should not go unpunished, but we believe it is absolutely essential to examine the social context that breeds violence and intolerance among young people.

Second, I would like to talk about the situation of young people in Quebec which is even more alarming and distressing. According to a recent report by the Conseil permanent de la jeunesse du Québec, nearly 40 per cent of young Quebecers live in poverty and 50 per cent do so for at least five years. More than 150,000 young Quebecers are on welfare.

The Quebec coroner's office has recorded an average of some 350 suicides by young people every year since 1987. The youth unemployment rate in Quebec is nearly 20 per cent, or over 137,000 young people just in Quebec. At least 45,000 jobs would have to be created annually in Quebec to absorb the young people arriving on the labour market. The high-school dropout rate is now 32.2 per cent in Quebec.

Vocational training is also deficient. Most of the 26,000 people waiting for training to improve their chances on the labour market are young.

The alarming situation of young people affects not only their own future prospects but also the economy. More and more, young people must face the same prejudices as all unemployed people and welfare recipients. The confidence and dignity of our rising generation suffer greatly as a result. The vicious circle of unemployment and poverty- I realize that this does not seem to interest the people opposite, but I would not like us to be drowned out by their laughter and their talking. They are disturbing us.

It is not easy to get out of the vicious circle of unemployment and poverty. It leads to an extreme loss of motivation which can increase the social problems of our young people. The situation of young native people is even more alarming and requires more specific help that is better suited to what they are going through.

In the speech from the throne, the government said that it was considering self-government for native people. It could start by

giving them the necessary resources and support so that they can take better care of their young people too.

One of the most important aspects of the reform of social programs proposed by the Minister of Human Resources is consultation. Taking so much time and resources reminds me of the operation which followed the failure of the Meech Lake Accord and led up to the famous Charlottetown accord. The more things change, the more they are the same. One could say that this government does not know how to learn from past failures. If only we were assured that the consultations will proceed in the spirit of openness described in the speech from the throne. But judging by previous consultations, that will surely not be the case. If the consultations preceding the speech from the throne are any indication, how does the government intend to ensure the openness described in the Speech from the Throne?

I would like to mention here something that happened to me on January 15. Having learned the day before that the Secretary of State for Training and Youth was holding consultations in Quebec City, I contacted her office to be invited as an observer in my capacity as opposition critic for training and youth. No way, I was told, it was by invitation only, and they did not even tell me where it was taking place, even though Quebec City is across from Lévis, right near my riding.

Since this consultation was for all young people in Quebec, I later contacted the main youth organizations to find out if they had been invited. None of these groups, except the permanent council on youth, a Quebec government agency, had received an invitation. Invitations were made over the heads of the umbrella groups, sometimes directly to some member organizations or to organizations which have nothing to do with training. As if that were not enough, student organizations were completely overlooked, and students will soon be on the labour market. Is that how this government intends to consult? That is a fine way to consult!

Another gem about the Secretary of State for Training and Youth is her statement last Monday on Quebec. She said: "I have been to Quebec twice and I have a fairly good idea of what the people there want". I have been to English Canada several times myself, and in all modesty, I cannot say that I know very well what the people in those provinces want. If you think you know what Quebec wants after two visits to Quebec, I think you are fooling yourself.

Even if there are a least a hundred federal programs available to young people, very few are reserved specifically for them and when they are, they are inadequately funded.

The worst thing that happened to young people during the Conservative reign was not the elimination of the Katimavik program, the demise of which went virtually unnoticed aside from the remonstrations of Senator Jacques Hébert. No, the worst thing was the elimination in 1987 of a provision which gave priority to young people in so far as federal programs were concerned. Another dramatic situation that young people face is when they are caught in the middle, that is when they meet neither the criteria of the federal government, nor those of the provincial government. These young people do not have access to occupational training if they do not receive unemployment insurance or social assistance or if they have not been out on their own for at least two years.

Even though the federal government does not seem inclined to respect provincial jurisdiction over training, it could at least respect existing structures before creating new ones, especially given the context of budget cuts. Consider the example of employment development agencies and agencies that sponsor training extension programs. There is a comprehensive federal network in place in Quebec and elsewhere and I think these structures should be strengthened before new ones are created.

In point of fact, the demands of young people have been well known for many years in Quebec. A national youth summit was held in 1983 and more than 133 agencies participated in public hearings in 1989. One very important fact emerged from these consultations, namely that jobs were a priority. According to young people and to groups that made representations, the ultimate goal that the government should be pursuing is full employment.

In pursuing this objective, consideration must be given to the characteristics of the various groups of unemployed people and to the realities in the different regions. People in the community must be involved to a greater degree. Without regional solidarity, there can be no worthwhile job creation plan. Young people are also critical of the multiplicity of programs and of the way in which resources are allocated. Specifically, they lament the fact that each time a new government comes to power, the names of the programs change.

Quebec youth want a quick end to duplication and to futile struggles between governments. They also want to be involved more in the process. Young people have set up youth consultation forums in the regions but they need more money to support their action. They are also hoping for improved funding of local youth community organizations.

To help young people the government intends to create a Youth Service Corps, an initiative that should give them the opportunity to undergo a training period to acquire experience and build up confidence. This project is strangely reminiscent of the old Katimavik program abolished by the Conservatives in 1986. The Youth Service Corps does not stress second language learning as much as Katimavik but it does not offer any new

solutions to young people's problems; it is recycled material. The Youth Service Corps mostly offers occupational activities without direct links to the workforce of today and tomorrow.

Again, instead of creating a new program and a new structure, we should better support youth organizations by giving them extra resources to adjust to today's reality. It would be a unique opportunity to combine job training with regional development. Young people should have a chance to become familiar with new computer and other technologies while helping their communities.

In conclusion, I would like to add a few comments: even if the youth service corps appears at first glance to be motivated by good intentions, it hides in my opinion an effort to gain time before tackling the real problems of young people. It is a flashy operation that will reach very few young people, 10,000 in three years, when there are over 600,000 unemployed Canadians between the ages of 16 and 24. The youth service corps is merely a recycled Katimavik program. This is an old remedy for a new problem. It is also one more incursion into an area of provincial jurisdiction. The only positive side that I can see is organizing activities for young people who want to take a sabbatical before making a permanent career choice. However, this is certainly not a priority compared with the needs already identified by organizations involved in training young people.

[Speech From The Throne, January 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member for South West Nova. I have confidence in his description of the problems in his riding caused by the introduction of fishing quotas, the difficulties experienced by the mining and textile industries, the decline of farming, the small and medium sized businesses that are also struggling.

He talked about problems but his speech did not suggest any solutions to these problems. What he described could apply to several regions or sub-regions across Canada; this problem, in my opinion, is due in part to the distance separating these regions from the central government.

Since I am the critic for Youth and he spoke about the Youth Service Corps, I would like to draw his attention to the concerns expressed so far during the consultations held with the organizations responsible and ask him whether he thinks, for example, that $61 a week for young people could be a solution for his region from an economic standpoint?

[Speech From The Throne, January 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for his concern for young people. In my party I am the critic for youth, and I would say that the problem is the large number, more than two million, of young people living in poverty. I think it is extremely important not to forget this fact.

However, a little further in his speech he says that the way to improve the situation is to lower taxes. He does not even mention any program that could help people, especially young people, get out of poverty. Could he comment on that?

[Speech From The Throne, January 27th, 1994]

Thank you for giving me more time. I basically said that only once in Quebec's history was an NDP member, the former hon. member for Chambly, elected in a by-election. Despite his potential, this devoted and dynamic person decided not to run again in the last general election and, in our opinion, his decision was due to his party's insensitivity towards what was happening in Quebec.

Does his party, having noted the results of the democratic vote held last October 25, want to review its position regarding a strong central federal government?

[Speech From The Throne, January 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by the hon. member from the New Democratic Party. His statement about regionalism caught my attention. He also said that he favoured a strong central government.

I just want to tell the other members that the only NDP member ever elected in a by-election in Quebec did not run again in the last election because of his party's insensitivity. I think it is worth underlining that aspect to show the insensitivity of a so-called democratic party towards people from across the country and particularly towards Quebec. In the end, I think that the population judged them on that.

[Mil Davie Shipyard, January 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, how can the Minister of Transport still try to delay the review of this important issue after just stating in answer to the previous question that the federal government has been studying the matter for two years already and that the Liberal government has made a commitment to create jobs, while at the same time shipyard workers in Lévis are very concerned about the impending closure of their shipyard which should happen in a few months, given the fact that preparations have to be made before construction of the ferry gets under way. Given all those facts, how can the minister explain why it is taking so much time to reach a decision?