Audrey McLaughlin

[Health Care, February 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.

The Minister of Health has refused to stand up for the health of Canadians by supporting the lowering of taxes on cigarettes. Today in newspapers across the country we see ads by the Distillers Association of Canada to lower the taxes on alcohol. The minister is aware of the costs and health care risks of alcoholism in our society.

Will the minister stand up today in this House and say that she is against the lowering of taxes on alcohol, as she did not do on cigarettes, clearly another health care risk?

[Tobacco Products, February 8th, 1994]

The New Democratic Party knows that smuggling is a very complicated problem. It is not a very effective way of solving the problem, but I have a few comments concerning the government's plan.

The first point I would like to make in response to the statement of the Prime Minister is that while we recognize this is a very complicated problem, we think it is based on several assumptions.

One assumption is that this is a problem related only to cigarettes and tobacco products. It is clear, as we heard from the alcohol manufacturers, that they are gearing up their campaign for similar treatment. It seems to me this is a very slippery slope, reducing the tax on cigarettes, the government has embarked upon without a full framework of all the ramifications on other products as well.

The assumption that this issue will be dealt with is a major assumption indeed since there are other products, other manufacturers, other issues that are going to be affected very quickly. The government should in my view have brought in a plan which would deal with the whole issue and all the products that might be included.

Second, this was not a plan developed in conjunction with the provinces and the territories in a way that there could be a coherent plan across the country. Clearly, if provinces set different tax rates, we are going to see that there will be a similar problem between and among provinces.

I want to say that we are very much in favour of the export tax and the surtax proposed by the government. We are not in favour of lowering taxes on cigarette products. However, it is based on the assumption that the cigarette manufacturers will not raise their prices to compensate for the increased tax. I just raise that as a problem.

The third point I would like to make is on enforcement. Our party very strongly believes there needs to be increased enforcement both for those who buy contraband products and those who sell them. However, the government will know there has been a significant reduction in financial resources both to the RCMP and to customs officers. The question this raises is: What is the capacity of the RCMP and customs officers with the reductions in their own budgets that they have felt over the last few years? What is their capacity?

We oppose the reduction of taxes on cigarettes because this is not within the framework of a full plan. Clearly the statistics on health and, as the Prime Minister mentioned, young people are clear. The higher cost has resulted in a reduction of the use of tobacco products. There are over 37,000 Canadians a year who die from the use of tobacco products. I believe this plan will be very detrimental to health care in Canada.

Finally, this morning we heard many provincial commentators saying that they are concerned that the unilateral plan of the government without full consultation and a joint plan with the provinces may undermine the national health forum. The government has undertaken an attempt to solve a very difficult problem. However I believe it is on a slippery slope when it simply sees the reduction of the cigarette tax doing this.

The other areas are very important and I hope the government will not, as the previous government did, back down on the export tax when manufacturers start to complain about it.

I would say that we in Canada are left with a very serious problem regarding smuggling of a number of products not included in this plan. We are still left with a significant health

care problem that I believe we had found a way to address but now that way is being undermined by the government's plan.

[Tobacco Products, February 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if I might seek unanimous consent of the House to make a very brief response to the Prime Minister's statement on behalf of my party.

[House Of Commons Standing Orders, February 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to refer to a question I asked the Minister of Health on February 1, 1994 as to whether she was prepared to stand up for the health of Canadians on the question of the government's proposed policy of lowering taxes on cigarettes.

The real question today is who sets tax policy and who defends health care policy in this country?

First of all on the question of who sets tax policy, Canadians are wondering whether it is the law breakers or the cigarette companies.

I must say the government certainly has some connections with cigarette companies such as that with Imasco, for example, which is the parent company of Imperial Tobacco. The Minister of Finance was formerly a member of the board. In 1992 Imasco donated $47,477.30 to the Liberal Party of Canada. Canadians are wondering whether the cigarette manufacturers are setting tax policy.

Is it the provinces and territories? It would seem it is not the provinces and territories in conjunction with the federal government because the provinces and territorial health ministers are meeting tomorrow. The government has said it will state its intention on this matter tomorrow before that meeting is completed.

The Minister of Health in her response to my question said she was concerned about health. She did not answer as to whether as Minister of Health she would stand up for the health of Canadians and advocate that cigarette taxes not be lowered.

Rather, she said that she was very concerned about the high level of tobacco use among young people. I suggest to the Minister of Health that she might have cited the Statistics Canada study which indicates there was a direct decrease in consumption of tobacco products by teens as the price went up. However the minister refused to say where she stood on this issue.

I would say also it is clear that the direct health cost results of lowering the tax will place a further burden on the provinces. Today there is a news release from the British Columbia health minister which states tobacco related illness is estimated to cost British Columbia nearly $1 billion annually.

I would also ask as I did on February 1 whether this government is prepared to compensate provinces and territories for increased health costs as a result of decreased cost of tobacco products.

It is clear that the use of tobacco is a very high contributor both to the health costs of Canadians and alas to the death of Canadians with some 37,000 Canadians a year dying as a result

of tobacco use. In fact, a recent survey on selected causes of preventable death indicated that tobacco was number one far outweighing traffic accidents, suicides, AIDS, homicides, fires, accidental poisoning and undetermined deaths. The relationship between tobacco use, health care costs and indeed the life and death of Canadians has been shown clearly.

I would appreciate hearing what the government proposes to do in terms of the health of Canadians and whether Canadians are going to have a Minister of Health who advocates both within the cabinet and this House of Commons for the health of Canadians and takes that responsibility seriously .

In view of the fact that in the next couple of years we will be undergoing a very comprehensive review of health care and health care costs, it does not augur well that we have a Minister of Health who would not stand up for the health of Canadians, but chose to be evasive and not to answer the questions on this issue.

[Cigarette Taxes, February 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it appears this government is going to cave in to the law breakers by lowering taxes on cigarettes.

Tobacco, I might point out to this House, is the only legal consumer product that kills when used exactly as intended. It costs the Canadian taxpayer an estimated $15 billion in indirect and direct health care costs.

The revenue minister says cost does not affect the use of tobacco. I wonder what the minister is smoking. In 1992 Statistics Canada indicated: "Affordability is to date the most significant factor in the reduction of tobacco use in Canada. Regular smoking among Canadian teenagers has plummeted as taxes drove prices up higher".

How about getting from the Minister of Health a real commitment to the health of Canadians. Stop the smoke-screen. The Minister of Health should come clean and cough up: Does she or does she not support lowering taxes on cigarettes?

[Unemployment, February 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.

Once again we see the unemployment rates today have increased. In the 100 days the government has been in power we have seen two major promises made in the red book broken: first, the implementation of the North American free trade deal and, second, cruise missile testing.

On behalf of those 1.4 million Canadians without jobs, I ask the Deputy Prime Minister: Will the government bring in employment targets in its new budget so it can be held accountable for its budgetary and fiscal plans?

[Taxation, February 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

It appears that the government is contemplating caving in and lowering taxes on cigarettes regardless of the cost to the health of Canadians and to the health care system. Since the government is seriously contemplating this proposal, does it mean that the government is now going to set tax policy based on those who break the law rather than on those who make the law?

[Full Employment Act, February 2nd, 1994]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-209, an act to provide for full employment in Canada.

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to table this bill today. This bill establishes that full employment must be the first objective of any economic and fiscal policy of the federal government. It is the surest means to lower a poverty rate of over 11 percent and to put an end to poverty.

This bill would require the Minister of Labour to prepare a draft plan for the achievement of full employment targets which the minister would then put before this House.

I am sure that all members of this House agree that we must in a systematic and dedicated way address the issue of unemployment and I seek when this comes for final reading the support of all members of this House.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Pre-Budget Consultations, February 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I presume the member is referring to a child care system that is universal and accessible. Those two hallmarks are extremely important in any kind of child care system.

We have proposed a national child care system that would be participatory between the federal government, the provinces and territories and those using child care service. I think that is a fair and equitable way to do it.

The hon. member who said he finds himself surprised to agree with me will want to also agree that the children of this country deserve a chance from this House.

[Pre-Budget Consultations, February 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to answer for the Minister of Transport. We used to sit very close together on this side of the House.

I would like to address the very serious comments made by the previous speaker. While I will not answer directly the specifics that she raised, which is obviously for the government to answer, I would like to raise in part what she is referring to and has something to do with her issue and that is the whole issue of economic equity in this country and the fact that we are a large and diverse country with large rural populations as well as urban populations. It must be indicated to Canadians in the budget that the government has a true concern for every region of this country. We in the north often feel we have been left out. I know many areas of the country feel that way, that there is a lot of attention on central Canada and not so much on other parts of the country. It will be extremely important that the minister show through this budget that the government wants to see fairness and equity in economic development in every part of this country, rural and urban.