Jan Brown

[Excise Act, February 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have to ask clarification from the hon. member on a couple of things. I appreciate the comments from the other side. They very much enrich the kind of debate we are having here today.

I believe the Solicitor General earlier in the discussion this morning said tougher law enforcement would not have achieved the desired result to end smuggling. Therefore I have to ask why the hon. member suggested so strongly that my comments about law enforcement were not completely correct.

I believe in my statement I gave a challenge to this debate concerning why we are changing our laws at this point. Enforce-

ment is a very important element of any law structure. It seemed to me that those who are there to enforce the law have a responsibility to do that to the full extent. I was just asking the question about why we have to change the law. The Solicitor General said that tougher law enforcement would not have achieved the desired result. I am a little confused as to the point the member was trying to make.

I concur with the hon. member that education is a very important facet of what we are trying to accomplish. I believe, however, that by opening the door to increased smoking we are looking at a huge health problem further down the road.

[Excise Act, February 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments.

I want the member to acknowledge that I was speaking from some personal experience and from the point that I wish to challenge the change to the law, why we are changing the way we have been performing our function and why the government feels that laws which were in place prior to this one were not good enough. I tried to make that point in my discussion.

I must say I did not realize this change was only a temporary one. That really astonishes me. I thought we were debating a change that was for the long term. I will just leave it at that.

[Excise Act, February 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the elected representative of the constituents of Calgary Southeast and as such I speak for and with them.

Having said that and anticipating this debate, I not only tracked the calls and letters that came to me, but I also conducted a poll in my riding. Of those polled, 58 per cent opposed the government's proposed tax rollback. I am pleased to bring their collective wisdom and opinions to the debate today.

The motion before us has three components. I will speak in particular to the amendments to the Tobacco Sales to Young Persons Act. I do have some personal thoughts and insights I would like to bring to bear as well. Before doing that, it is critical to consider what this legislation is intended to accomplish.

The government alleges it is concerned with the massive smuggling problem facing our country today. Therefore Bill C-11 has been put forward by the government as part of a national action plan to combat smuggling. This legislation and the accompanying plan to combat smuggling tell me four things.

First, the legislation shows that the Government of Canada cannot enforce its own laws. Second, it shows that the influence of the tobacco industry is highly sophisticated and tremendously powerful. Third, Bill C-11 shows us that the deficit is not a concern of the federal government. Fourth, the legislation clearly shows that the federal government has little appreciation for the health and welfare of Canada's youth.

I will deal with the first point, that the Government of Canada shows us it cannot enforce its own laws. The government admits there is a substantial problem with smuggling, that people are going outside the law to maximize their own personal profits. However instead of strictly enforcing the laws as they now exist, the government chooses to change them. This is a vain hope. This legislation may put an end to the high level of tobacco smuggling but it is a half measure and will not stop the smuggling.

I believe in a good challenge to any debate. My first challenge to the government is this: Why was the law so poorly enforced that new measures are now required? Will these make the new law any easier to enforce?

My next challenge questions the influence of the tobacco industry. This highly sophisticated and powerful lobby has finally succeeded in getting the government to backtrack on the largest contributing factor to the decrease in tobacco sales. That was high taxes on tobacco products. The people of Canada are already cynical and have lost faith in the credibility of the government. How will the government restore that faith given that it appears to have bowed to the pressure of the tobacco industry's lobby efforts?

The federal government in proposing Bill C-11 will forgo revenue in an attempt to stop smuggling. In so doing the federal government makes it clear that our deficit and our debt are not priorities.

The Prime Minister admitted that in 1994-95 alone the government expects to lose $300 million in revenue because of the reduction in tobacco taxes. The Prime Minister goes on to suggest the health promotion surtax on profits of tobacco manufacturers will generate some $200 million over three years. The government release on the action plan to combat smuggling suggests this $200 million will fund a range of health promotion activities, including measures to reduce smoking. This sounds fine and good, but who will pay for it?

The government estimates the tax revenue lost to be $300 million in the first year alone. It then asserts it will generate $200 million from taxes on the tobacco industry. These numbers are questionable to me. At best there will be a shortfall of $100 million, not including the further cost of the health promotion programs the government says are a priority. This immediate shortfall of $100 million is substantial but does not compare to the health costs to be incurred under the plan.

By reducing taxes we are encouraging existing smokers to smoke more and we are making it easier for new smokers to get hooked on the habit. Smokers will add further strain to our health care system. They do not require care today, but 10 to 15 years from now the government will regret the day of this decision.

Studies and experience over the past few decades have proven there is a direct correlation between smoking and heart disease and smoking and cancers of the lung, the oesophagus, the mouth, the tongue and the larynx. It has also been shown that smoking has a detrimental effect on unborn children.

What will be the eventual financial cost? The numbers just do not work for this program.

The third challenge to the government is to decide how best to address the problem of the deficit without complex tax alternatives. This is not a solution to cigarette smuggling; quite frankly it is just blowing smoke.

My fourth point is that Bill C-11 shows that the federal government really has very little concern for the health and welfare of the nation's youth. Taxes on cigarettes and tobacco products were high for a reason: they brought the government revenue. More than that statistics showed that high taxes directly correlated to a decrease in tobacco sales especially among our youth. Simply put, cigarettes became too expensive.

Health and Welfare Canada states that when the price of tobacco products rises by 10 per cent, sales to adults drop by 4 to 9 per cent. More significant, sales to teenagers drop by 10 per cent to 14 per cent.

This legislation has some very serious implications for the health of our nation, particularly our youth. Dr. Robert Allen is the Canadian professor of economics who contends that if the tax cut to the price of tobacco in Quebec is implemented in the rest of Canada it will result in 840,000 more smokers and 175,000 of them will be teenagers.

The government contends that it has a plan that will keep our youth from smoking. The idea, as I see it, is to keep cheap cigarettes out of the hands of our young people. The government, however, chooses to change a plan that was working well. Smoking was on the decline in Canada and young people including my daughter were being discouraged from smoking.

My daughter, despite objections and at first unknown to us, began smoking at the age of 12. She would smoke several packages a week and nothing we said or did made any difference. When we travelled in the United States she would buy cheap cartons of American cigarettes and smoke like a chimney until they were gone. However, back home again she was back to her usual habit of a couple of packs a week. She could not afford the high cost of cigarettes.

As these costs have increased, her usage has decreased. It saddens me to think that a government action will now further encourage my daughter's smoking addiction.

The government proposes another idea to reduce the number of young people smoking and that is banning the kiddie pack. I believe this idea to be ridiculous. As a young constituent working in a local gas station confided, mostly it is the older people who buy kiddie packs. The cool kids buy packs of 25 and not kiddie packs.

There will always be a part of our population that tries to beat the rules, and undoubtedly the moral hazard will take its toll on this legislation. If young people want cigarettes, and thanks to Bill C-11 they will be able to afford them, they will be able to get them. They will lie in bed at night thinking about how. This

government has only increased the age of prohibition and even that becomes irrelevant when there is no commensurate will to enforce it.

There has only been one measure that has worked in minimizing the access of our youth to tobacco products, high taxes. I challenge members opposite me and all my colleagues on this side of the House to recognize the wisdom of this measure. As a young adult recently said to me, the government should raise taxes on those things that are bad for us and lower taxes on those things that are good for us.

Governments must recognize their social responsibility to our youth. When this happens, parents like me can say thanks.

[Excise Act, February 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I too appreciate very much the remarks of the Minister of Health.

I wonder if the minister could respond to my question with respect to the briefing we had yesterday. This is not meant as a challenge in any way. It is for my clarification.

It is my understanding that the manufacture of kiddie packs will continue until May 1, 1994. That means there are still two months of production left for this particular kind of package and I understand it was for the transition for the manufacture of this product.

It seems somewhat unusual, almost to the point of ludicrous that we would have a package available in the marketplace for two months when we are looking to enforce a particular law.

Could the minister give her assurance that she will look into this and explain how she will ensure that the kiddie packs are not sold to minors from now until May 1, 1994?

[Underground Economy, February 21st, 1994]

I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the Minister of National Revenue. I appreciate his lengthy response. However, I have to ask again does the revenue department have a real plan to reduce taxes in order to solve the problem of the underground economy?

[Underground Economy, February 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue.

A growing number of Canadians are joining the underground economy and evading taxes. The chairman of the finance committee suggests that it is the fault of the GST. On the other hand, the Minister of National Revenue suggests that chartered accountants and lawyers are somehow responsible.

Is the government looking for scapegoats or does it really know why the underground economy is exploding?

[Defence Policy, February 17th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I will be as brief as I possibly can.

I would like to thank the hon. member for his presentation. He included significant detail in his speech of those projects in Quebec that are defence oriented and within the manufacturing sector. They do indeed provide employment to many. He cited the figure of 46,000 jobs.

He indicated in his opening remarks his concern for the lack of a thread to link together our debates in this House. This is a legitimate concern demonstrating a desire to seek coherence, which I think is the word the hon. member used, through national program development. He then moved to provincial domain, highlighting a narrower level of concern.

How can he reconcile his role as a national representative while at the same time working on a case by case scenario within and for Quebec? This does not provide the national coherence that he identified in his opening remarks.

[Business Of Supply, February 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. Within the context of my presentation I did quote the 1992 Auditor General's report.

That is exactly the point I was trying to make. We seek other ways to get things done in this particular area by approaching problems using private sector funding.

[Business Of Supply, February 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, if I may be so bold I just have to say that you do have an interesting way with your hands. You kept gesturing making me think I was running over my time or that I had to wrap up my comments. You might want to put your hands in your pockets, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. member for his question. He has to know how difficult this question is for me to address because it is based very much on emotion. I would be the last person to look at something from an accountant's perspective. When it comes to compassion requiring difficult decision making, that is difficult because this matter is very much couched in difficulty.

I am sorry I did not make the relationship of social reform, social programs and expenditure more clear to the member. I am committed to an economic agenda. As members of the House of Commons during this particular Parliament it is extremely important that we get our spending under control. There will be a very inefficient and ineffective system for care for everyone if we do not get our financial house in order.

While I was campaigning I did meet people who had lost their homes or who were going to be losing their homes because of the very sad condition of our economy. That is the perspective I brought to this debate and which I presented to the member.

[Business Of Supply, February 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is with keen interest and deep concern that I rise today in the House to address the motion put forward by the Bloc Quebecois.

Acknowledging the seriousness of our discussions here today is more than just debating how to provide more effective and efficient support to those in need. It is a challenge most fundamental coming to the realization that responsible financial management requires thoughtful planning. Nowhere in this motion do I sense a strategy or any idea for that matter of where that money is going to come from.

Spending in the country continues at an alarming rate. Even as I speak every minute represents $88,410 in additional debt. The jobless, the discouraged, the fearful and the poor are still out there. That is very overwhelming. What are we going to do?

I believe we have to ask ourselves three things when we consider expenditures of any kind, especially in the area of social spending. It takes courage to be objective when reviewing social reforms because our emotions are involved and that is when it is most difficult to make a decision.

My questions are what do we want, how do we get there, and what will it take?

Let us look first at what Canadians want. People are outraged that our government has been in an out of control spending mode for two decades. Our nation is like a Hollywood front, all glitter and glass purchased on borrowed money with nothing of substance holding it up.

It is a stunning picture on the reality of this House that not since the minority Parliament of 1972-74 has Parliament directly acted to cut expenditures. Even in that situation in which the government lacked a controlling majority, the House of Commons achieved two small cuts amounting in total to $20,000.

To give a sense of proportion, since the current procedure for committee review of estimates was initiated in 1969, Parliament has authorized about $2 trillion worth of expenditures. This means that Parliament has made cuts that represent only one millionth of one per cent of total expenditures that it approves.

Here we find the Bloc Quebecois having spoken eloquently on numerous occasions about deficit control and debt reduction, bringing forward a motion to spend money but not explaining within that context how that money will be found.

If we want to reduce the deficit and begin a meaningful effort at getting our economy on track and our social reforms in place, the second question I ask is how will we get there? We begin with the right people. We need people who will stand up and say this is not good enough, we are not willing to solve tough issues

by following the easier path. Throwing money at programs is easy.

I believe the social role of government is determined by clarifying priorities, responding to the give and take as governments attempt to pay for increasingly costly social programs while coping with the ever diminishing economic base.

However, in the motion before us today there is no appearance of a give and take, merely an arbitrary dole, a short sighted, stop gap solution.

Canadian welfare and social programs were designed on a premise of high employment. Therefore, social programs and economic policy are mismatched. Given that the overwhelming need for social support is the direct result of the poor economic health of the country, tinkering with pieces of social policy will not help. However, changing our economic policy will help.

If a room is freezing because of frigid air coming in through a broken window, we do not turn up the heat; we fix the window. So it is with this motion. We are turning up the heat when we need to fix what is broken.

It is the unhealthy fiscal policy of this government and that of previous governments which are causing such a strain on our social programs. As the debt has grown interest payments have consumed an increasing proportion of the government's spending. They now constitute an enormous strain on the treasury. In 1974 they consumed only 11 per cent of the government's spending but today they consume 25 per cent. That is $40 billion from the treasury which go to interest payments on the debt. That, not coincidentally, is about equal to the federal deficit.

The point I am making is one given to us by the Auditor General: "In 1992 in an age of scarce public resources and growing debt, seeking ways to see that things get done by or through others rather than spending money to do them becomes increasingly important". Are we not ever going to hear the wisdom of those words as we apply mental energy ever seeking answers to the pressing social concerns of the day?

I ask the question: What will it take? I know courageous leadership is part of the answer. A government that listens to its people is made stronger and can deal more effectively with tough issues.

However, the Bloc motion puts more emphasis on spending to relieve an overburdened social system. I cannot support that. However I support greater financial sustainability over the long term. This requires a new commitment to sound, long-term financial management.

Another important question now needs to be asked: is it better to help households obtain adequate housing by directly providing the housing or by assisting them to increase their incomes? This means fostering an environment in which people are able to work. It is critical that we maintain federal spending at current levels for high priority functions, including labour force and training and adjustment programs.

It is also necessary that provinces have the freedom to distribute federal funding and manage their own programs. This comes back to my earlier comments about priorities. Maintaining federal transfers to provinces remains key in terms of preserving those programs targeted to those in need. I believe that public money should be regarded by governments as funds held in trust and that governments should practise responsibility, particularly the responsibility to balance expenditures and revenues.

We need to see significant spending cuts that are judiciously planned for the long term. I applaud those moves by the government to withhold funding support for programs for which there is no long range plan or strategy for the expenditure.

In conclusion the choices and decisions we must make have to be so clearly laid out before every Canadian so that all of us understand where we are going and what it is going to take to get there. This is my challenge to this House and to the Bloc Quebecois on its motion.