Roy H. Bailey

[Tobacco Act, October 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the minister has come into this debate saying that it is most progressive.

Will the minister not agree, and I know that he will, that phasing in something of this nature does not work? It has never worked in this country and it is not going to work now.

If it is a good thing to bring about a total ban on cigarette and tobacco advertising in the year 2003, what is wrong with a total ban in 1998? That is what Canadians are asking.

I say to the Minister of Health that a lot of people will lose their lives to cancer during those five years and the guilt is going to lie on those people who support this bill.

[Tobacco Act, October 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. As long as the profits from the tobacco industry contribute to the revenue of this government, or of any government, without going directly to health care or directly to education, then it is going to be wiggled around forever because it likes to get its hands on money.

Secondly, as long as the tobacco tycoons are able every four years to shovel a whole bunch of money into the coffers of this party or any other party, this bill will never become a reality.

I can assure members from experience that this bill will never become a reality because the government always wants money and it just loves political patronage from tycoons in the tobacco industry.

[Tobacco Act, October 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will respond to the latter part of the hon. member's question first.

I believe that people on that side of the House, as well as on this side, if they are given the opportunity to do some soul searching, and if that soul searching is strong enough and rises above the party's position, will vote this bill down.

I respect hon. members on the other side of the House and I know how many of them want to vote. They have told me how they want to vote.

With respect to the other part of the question, it has been proven beyond a doubt that more advertising, more accessibility and a cheaper product increases consumption. All it does is bring about more death. It brings about more addiction. The fault, as we look at the five year phase in period, will hang very heavily on some people's shoulders. It will be on the shoulders of the people who vote yes for this tobacco bill. Make no mistake about it.

As Abraham Lincoln said about liquor, it has many defenders, but so far nobody has come up with a defence. I would challenge anyone on either side of this House to realistically study Bill C-42 and come up with one good defence as to why we should continue to advertise tobacco products and make them available over the counter. I know they have taken strong action, but the fact is that I cannot go to any high school in my riding and not see youth smoking, despite what they are doing.

With this phase in period, all they are doing is asking them to continue in dribbles.

My conscience, and I am sure the conscience of many members, both in the back and front rows, will say that Bill C-42 is a mistake. Take it back to the drawing board and come up with something that is saleable to Canadians and to all the health organizations in Canada who do not think kindly of this bill being passed.

[Tobacco Act, October 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise and speak to Bill C-42.

This bill is very close to me at this time. It is a one that is affecting my family right now. It is a bill that has affected my family in the past.

I really wish that every member of the government was in their place right now to examine what they are about to do with this bill. This five year phase-in on tobacco advertising will probably kill thousands of people and start thousands of more teenagers into an addiction habit.

If members opposite and those who want to support this bill would just sit for a moment. Never mind the tobacco tax they are going to receive because they are going to lose all of it in extra health care. Never mind the grant they are going to get or political patronage from the tobacco companies. Let us just sit down for a moment this afternoon and ask ourselves is it worth it. Is it worth it to see thousands of young people become addicted to the still massive advertising of the tobacco companies? The bill should not be phased in over five years. The bill should come in now and everybody in the House would support it.

My colleague from Elk Island did not want to use the word hypocrisy. I have to use that word for this reason. When the government was faced with massive smuggling, what did it do? Instead of dealing with the smuggling, it said to the teenagers of Ontario and Quebec mainly we are going to drop the tax, we are going to lower the price of cigarettes, go ahead and smoke, you will not have to work a full hour on the lowest pay scale for one package of cigarettes, you can now get two or three packages. So the in thing was to smoke.

The government created the highest teenage level of smoking in Canada in years by its inability to look at an issue and say we are going to put our money into stopping the smuggling of cigarettes back into Canada. It did not want to do that. It created a double standard. The rule of law did not apply in Canada.

In Dryden, Ontario people could buy cigarettes for less than half of what they could a few miles away in Manitoba. The government continues to justify that.

I agree with the hon. member that we should have an educational program, taking all the money, all the revenue and putting programs into our schools.

Let me tell members about an incident in my life. My brother was 49 years old. I was 35 miles out of the office when the call came to go back to the office. The message was that a 49 year old prince of a man had just died of lung cancer. Today I have another family member who is in serious trouble health wise.

Just think how many people in the next five years are going to become addicted because the government has more concerns about the filthy lucre it is going to get and the political patronage grants it is going to get from the tobacco companies than to face this issue square on. Think about it.

The government failed to recognize what the cancer societies said. It failed to recognize what the Health Association of Canada said. No, the government has to do it its way.

I sat in on a lung operation. I sat in on a smoker's lung being removed. A high tech camera should show that picture in every high school classroom in this country. Watch them take out a gross lung, completely ruined by tar and nicotine.

Here we have a bill that is not going to curb but will be phased in.

Knowing the record of the government, it will never get truly phased in as long as there is kick-in under the table on political patronage and grants. All people in Canada know that. The Canadian Cancer Society knows it. Members on the government side know it and all hon. members know it.

Tobacco has many defenders but, no matter what, nobody can come up with a defence.

Immediately the government has shied away from what it promised. This is not what it promised. It promised it would bring about an immediate change in encouraging the use of tobacco and it would stop this. The hypocrisy continues.

Bill C-42 is the height of hypocrisy. No matter what hon. members want to say, no matter what gestures they make, the public knows that this is hypocrisy.

The government zealously defends health by publicly attacking tobacco companies verbally, but not so realistically. It is still going to take the tax and the political donations and it is still going to be the cause of hundreds of young people becoming addicted to cigarettes in the next five years. The government and the Minister of Health cannot deny that.

The Minister of Health is in a very uncomfortable position with this bill. Go ahead and collect the large revenues and spend less than 1% on public advertising for our youth not to become addicted. That in itself is an act of hypocrisy of the highest degree.

The Minister of Health can tell us that the revenue they take in from tobacco does not even cover the cost of the medical problems caused by tobacco, let alone providing any educational material to put into our schools.

The hypocrisy in this bill, in not dealing with one of the biggest problems facing the health of Canadians, is to phase it in over five years. Even if 10% of those kids who are now 12 years of age become addicted simply because of the inability of this bill to do what Canada wants it to do, then the fault will surely fall on the government opposite. It has to.

The government is phasing this in over a five year period and is still allowing limited advertising and the whole bit. However, when it needs more money, does anyone know what it will do? Canadians know what it will do. It will make amendments down the road in about three or four years and will go over the whole process again.

I have lost relatives to tobacco. I have seen many young people destroy their lives with tobacco. I have seen an adult of only 30-some years of age, addicted in his teens, laying in a hospital bed. How can hon. members opposite sit there and support a bill that is going to be phased in? I cannot understand it and I do not think they do.

I know they say they received a letter on their desk which told them to support the bill, but let each member examine themselves. Let every member who votes in this House examine themselves. Let them take a look at a brother dying of throat cancer at 49 years of age because there was no program. They are not justifying it.

I happen to have a twin brother. The same fate awaits him because we did not have the medical knowledge that the hon. Minister of Health has now. We did not have all of the medical knowledge from the Canadian Cancer Society. We did not have thousands of people who were deadly against this bill.

Death and destruction is being phased in to untold millions of young Canadians who will be addicted under this rather fluffy policy. I beg of all members on both sides of the House to please examine their positions. Never mind the tax revenue. Never mind the political grants. Let us just think of the teenagers who will be addicted, have a free vote and watch Bill C-42 be defeated.

Please, for the sake of our young people, vote with your conscience and not with your party.

[Museums, October 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the poem I am about to read was written by my wife and is dedicated to the thousands of volunteers across Canada who give their time and their money to keep our small community museums open.

It is called “Keepers of the Past”.

In many a village, city or town There's a spot reserved where records are put down It may have been a church or a school or a hall Now, it houses memories and bits of history for recall.

Treasured possessions preserved through the years In this hallowed place, ably manned by volunteers Dusty antiques, all rusty and old Tin type photos with a story to be told.

Keepers of the past—a rich heritage For generations to come, of a more modern age Community pride—of this I can attest For Souris—Moose Mountain has some of the best.

[Criminal Code, October 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague and friend this question. Would he not deny that when we see the cutback in police forces across Canada, not just in his area but across the prairies as well, while at the same time we see a massive increase according to the newspapers in the amount of organized criminal activity, we are going in the wrong direction? We should be building up our police forces, not cutting them back.

[Committees Of The House, October 8th, 1998]

moved that the first report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans presented on Monday, March 23, 1998, be concurred in.

[Transportation, October 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport.

The Canadian Transportation Agency released a decision a few days ago on a complaint from the Canadian Wheat Board about grain transportation. The CN has admitted to some of the blame. The CPR is partly to blame. By now most prairie branch lines are abandoned or in the process of being abandoned. It is up to the farmers now to drive hundreds of kilometres on torn-up roads to get to the mainline terminals.

When will this government spend our federal fuel tax revenue where it should be spent, on improving roads so farmers can get their grain to market?

[Employment Insurance, October 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the people of Canada need this answer. My question is to the Minister of Finance.

Will taxpayer dollars be used to help in the case of the firing of Mr. Dussault? Yes or no?

[Canada Small Business Financing Act, October 2nd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to discuss Bill C-53.

Up to this point in time nobody has mentioned in the House what makes small businesses go or what makes small businesses operate. Coming from the western constituency of Souris—Moose Mountain we have but two major corporations. Both are government owned. They are coal generated power plants. Outside one other business every business in my constituency is under definition a small business.

In the winter of 1966-67 my question to the small businesses in my community was to ask what they needed most. At that time the answer was to get the high cost of government doing government business for them off their backs. It was almost universal.

Now the story has changed and it is a sad case on the western prairies. It is very sad in my community for small businesses. It is probably worse to be in a small business in the grain industry now than it has been since World War II.

When I made phone calls the comments I heard were that the bill did not interest them in the least. They wanted customers who had some money to spend. We have not addressed that question in the debate. It is a domino effect. If customers have no money in their pockets, the businesses go down regardless of the loans to them. We have not addressed the plight of primary industries for a long time.

I made two phone calls to small hardware stores in my community that would certainly qualify for a loan. Basically they depend entirely on two sources: the oil patch and the agricultural community.

Both hardware stores, same response. One more year of this and we close the door.

In most in my towns and villages there are three businesses closing for every one that is staying open. We have not addressed the problem of providing and looking after our primary industries. Grain production in Saskatchewan is still the number one industry. I will give members what I dug up in the last two days. Here are four local industries.

One, setting up steel storage beams. They are out of business. They had a loan. Two, an independent soil testing device to provide information to the farmers. Closed. Out of business. Three, fertilization. It no longer pays to fertilize with the price of grain. Four is very interesting. A local contractor not too far from where I live employing four people is out of business. His job was to put new roofs, barns and so on. But there is no money. Businesses are going down because we have neglected the primary industries.

I hope the House and all Canadians will listen to this so they understand. Picture in your minds nine steel bins on the prairies full of grain. The first three bins will go to pay the freight. The next two bins will go to pay the taxes. The next two bins will pay the fuel costs. The last two bins pay the seed, spray and maybe some fertilizer. NISA, the RRSP for farmers, was a good program. I commend the government and the provinces for that. It now is gone. They used it all in the last two years. They have exhausted their total line of credit at the banks and the credit unions.

Here is the situation. I read something I got yesterday morning from my local elevator. Canadians should realize why small local businesses are out of the picture. As of yesterday, with freight deducted, the farmer takes home $2.12 with number one red spring wheat. That is the worst price that the farmers have received. Nothing since World War II could come anywhere near that.

The agricultural economists tell us that if we do not get $4.00 a bushel we are not breaking even. 3CW durum is $2.02. No wonder men stores and the ladies shops and all the small businesses are closing. Oats are 77 cents a bushel. Number one feed barley is 74 cents a bushel.

I stopped a lady who had gone in to buy some shoes, some jeans, shirts and so on for a family of three to get them started back to school. The total bill was around $324. Let me tell members the plight of western Canadian small business. That small bit that she bought for her children would take 437 bushels of barley.

Instead of joking about this situation, hon. members should be ashamed of themselves. This is not a joke. I live among these people. I know what is happening out there. All across Canada, if the primary industries are not nurtured or protected, we will have a domino effect.

It would take 8,100 bushels of barley or 7,800 bushels of wheat to pay a $6,000 tax bill.

What happens to the small business is simply that the majority of taxes in Saskatchewan go to education. These taxes are not going to come in. Therefore what happens? There are fewer roads built, fewer teachers hired and it goes on and on.

The local governments cannot keep up because of commodity pricing and they are not the least bit interested in this bill until this government takes an honest look at what part it can do in looking at a very serious situation.

Two of the largest farm implement dealerships locked their doors in the last two months. They were for sale. No buyers.

In a survey I did, at 26 farm auction sales only 2 of those farms were going to be turned over to members of the same family. The majority of these people want nothing to do with the dreadful situation that exists.

The bill looks good. The bill sounds good but it is of absolutely no value whatsoever to the people I represent until the government does something about the primary industries.

The people in my constituency could not care less about the wrangling in this House today. That does not put money in their pockets. It does not give them any guarantee for the future. They hate to face the coming winter.

I do not deny that the government wants to support small business but I want members to be aware that if they are really going to support small business, they have to look after the primary industries of this country.

In that respect, the people in western Canada, the people I have met in my constituency totally will say you have disregarded the primary interest of our province. Members have to put more money into the hands of the customer.

There are approximately 68 private insurance brokers in my constituency. One motion of this government that will allow the banks and the credit unions to have it all in-store shopping could knock out 76 private businesses in two weeks.

They have heard the same message I have but I have made it abundantly clear to them that I am here to protect their business on the main street of every town. I hope the government heeds that lesson very well.

Another thing is the overtaxation not only to the consumer but as it deals with the private small business.

The domino effect of grants from this government and from the provincial government has made it virtually impossible for the small operator to meet those taxation demands. Their taxes have gone up 8 times, 800% in less than 20 years, and little wonder. If any of the members opposite want to dispute this claim they can do their own research. Is it not true that they have had as many phone calls as I have had with regard to the EI?

Both the people who called me this morning basically said “Do you want to hurt government businesses? We paid $1.40 for every one of our employees spending $1. It belongs to us and we won't be able to hire more people unless that premium is dropped”. This was from a person hiring some 16 people.

If government really wants to help small businesses, go ahead but it had better deal with the primary things first. It has taxed businesses to death. It has taxed the Canadian public to death. It has excessively taxed people on their CPP premiums, which is another tax grab. The government has a disgraceful record in the EI.

While all this is on one side of the government's books, it tries to stand in the House and tell us what a wonderful thing this is going to be for small business.

I wanted to move a motion before this bill went any further because I wanted to make it abundantly clear to all Canadians that small businesses with a staff of two and three people are going to close their doors in my province in the next two years because of this government's lack of concern as to what it could do to support that primary industry.

The second largest bill is the tax on the fuel that a farmer uses to run his farm. I was in a farm yard not too long ago when the tanks were filled and the bill was $1,800. A good portion of that is taxation.

I think this bill should be delayed. I look at these prices such as $2.12 a bushel for wheat. I do not think there is a farm, even if it is a 20 section farm, that can survive on that. However, because this government seems to have no interest in that small amount, I want to read to this House—