Hedy Fry

[Women's History Month, October 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the House about Women's History Month.

Women's History Month was created in 1992 by the federal government to foster greater awareness of the historical contributions of women to our society.

The impetus for Women's History Month came from my home province of British Columbia but was soon supported by organizations across the country.

For the past five years, the month of October has been designated Women's History Month in Canada. It is a time for all of us to recognize, discover and celebrate the accomplishments of women in Canada throughout all spheres of society.

October seemed the most appropriate month to acknowledge women's achievements because October 18 also marked an historical milestone in the struggle for women's equality. It was the day women legally gained the status of persons in Canada. On that day, a short 67 years ago, five Albertan women, Nellie McClung, Louise McKinney, Emily Murphy, Irene Parlby and Henrietta Muir Edwards, finally won the long struggle to have women fully recognized as persons in their own right, no longer to be seen as chattel or second class citizens.

This is a time to recognize and celebrate Canadian women. So much of women's contributions to the economic and social development of this great nation has been overlooked by traditional historians, by the classroom and by the media.

We often have to dig deep to find the forgotten and the overlooked. But as we do we gain a greater appreciation of the vital role women have played in the shaping of Canadian society. The history of women is one of struggle, of courage and of heroism.

Women historically were denied education, barred from certain professions, denied the support they needed to enter public service and political decision making, and yet despite these tremendous barriers women managed to make important contributions to Canada's development.

Women's History Month is a time to tell women's stories and celebrate their impressive victories, to speak of their efforts in peace and in war, as pioneers and scientists and daily heroines who raised families despite poverty and deprivation, violence and exclusion.

This year, the fifth Women's History Month, we are honouring women in the arts. We are honouring our cultural legacy. Throughout history, women's artistic and cultural contributions have often been undervalued and ignored, largely because of women's unequal status in society.

Women have been active participants in the cultural evolution of our country, forging our identity within Canada and to the world; women such as Emily Carr, Mary Pickford, Gabrielle Roy. From the writings of early French Canadian novelist Adéle Bibaud to the turn of the century wilderness photographs of Geraldine Moore, each has a story to tell of struggle for recognition and victory.

It has been said that history is a work in progress. Women's History Month adds fuel to that progress. Remembering, discovering and celebrating women's history has a clear impact on Canadians. Canadian women have built an astonishing cultural legacy that expresses the diverse and changing experiences of women in Canada.

I encourage all my colleagues in the House to take the time to discover and celebrate the women who have played an important role in the cultural legacy of our country, to give them a place of honour as role models to future Canadians, men and women; and in doing so, to lay the groundwork for the future, a future in which men and women are viewed as equals and with respect.

[Divorce Act, October 3rd, 1996]

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question. Maybe I did not make my point clearly enough. I did not say that the money for child support was not money put in the hands of the non-custodial parent. It was not directed to the custodial parent. It was directed to the child. Of course if the child is a minor then the custodial parent has a duty to use the money in the best interest of the child. This is different from spousal support which is not what we are talking about here. Spousal support is income in the hands of the custodial spouse and is tax deductible and should be. We are talking about two very different things here.

The hon. member asks whether it is the duty of the custodial parent to take the money for child support and spent it on the child. Yes, it is the duty.

Whatever stories or anecdotes we hear from the hon. member opposite to try to support his position that most custodial parents take that money and fritter it away on something for themselves is absolute nonsense. Most children of divorced parents are living a very low income status. The custodial parents are trying very hard to use that money in the best interest of the child. Often these children are not clothed or fed properly because the money is given back in taxes to the government. We are saying that is no longer

appropriate. Money should go directly to the child and not to the Government of Canada.

[Divorce Act, October 3rd, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I find the hon. member's question to be so absolutely typical of someone who does not really understand. He has never been there and does not even understand the reality of the lives of divorced families and of children of divorce.

This is the kind of statement that you would hear from an upper middle class male who does not have a clue. The hon. member talks about child support and that the adjudicator takes into consideration the real need and ability of the parent to pay. That is absolute rubbish.

Child support has, in the past, been dictated by who had the better lawyer. Invariably the custodial parent did not have the money to have the better lawyer and was at the wrong end of the stick. The point here is that it is the children who suffer.

The hon. member talked about income tax and child support. The interesting thing is that we get this kind of information coming across the floor because when you try to answer the question, you are not even given the courtesy of their listening to the answer. Misinformation continues to be fostered. They really do not want to hear the answer. The answer is that child support is not spousal support. Spousal support is income in the hands of the custodial parent. Child support is income in the hands of the child.

Parents who live together do not deduct the support for their child. They do not get to deduct it. Why should it be that we have this uneven system of parents who are not living together with their family get to deduct child support? Child support is not a discretionary thing. Child support is an absolute duty to the child.

I also heard the hon. member asking me about using 30 to 40 per cent of the half a million dollars in order to create a bureaucratic structure. I am not a mathematician. I certainly never claimed to be one. However, when I last looked 40 per cent of a half billion was not $15 million. This is grade 2 arithmetic we are talking about here. It is interesting that this kind of arithmetic comes out. Fifteen million dollars is not half of a half billion dollars. That is not 40 per cent of it.

One of the important things to remember is that if there is a system that is fair and equitable, that is going to be tracking people, you have to use the technology so the information is available across this country. That has been the major problem of enforcement. People leave provinces. They go to other provinces. No one can find them. They do not know where they are. If the defaulter cannot be tracked, support payments cannot be enforced.

It is a clear issue. We know that 43 per cent of non-custodial parents in the province of Ontario today do not pay a penny of child support. Of the remainder, only about 30 per cent of them manage to pay the full amount.

We are talking here about major default. We have to set into place the structures to help these children. Saying that this is a lot of rubbish actually means that the hon. member does not even understand the issue to start off with.

[Divorce Act, October 3rd, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to stand in my place today to support Bill C-41 which amends various existing legislation to ensure that child support reforms become law.

I am proud to do so because the Department of the Status of Women Canada and my predecessor, the hon. member for Mount Royal, played a major role in bringing this legislation to the fore. The hon. member did so by going around this country with a three person task force to meet with women, with custodial and non-custodial parents and the public in general. They listened to some of the problems and ideas that came from women, men and children with regard to child support. As a result, some of this legislation was brought into the fore.

This was also brought about by working with the Law Reform Commission of Canada which again has the body of expertise that can understand and deal with the law. The family law committee of federal, provincial and territorial representatives brought understanding and expertise on what happens when people divorce, on what happens to the child.

This piece of legislation speaks clearly to and in support of one person in this problem: the child. It speaks to one group of people who have had no one to advocate for them very strongly. This government has decided that we will advocate for the child.

Above all, this reform is a tribute to the hundreds of people across Canada who contributed to the dialogue. We heard from men and women, advocates for children, for mothers and fathers. We heard from accountants, lawyers and social service providers to name only a few.

The result before us is a law that will create a system of child support that is fair, equitable and beneficial to all Canadians. But above all, this legislation represents a balanced approach that is fair for children. It puts children first.

If I could summarize this bill in one phrase, it would be that child support is not a discretionary payment. Both parents must assume responsibility for their children, whether they live together or not. This is a duty, a responsibility. It is not something that a non-custodial parent can choose to ignore because the non-custodial parent has suddenly assumed a new life and wants to undertake a new lifestyle. The child is a responsibility of both parents.

We have seen clearly that children live in the same socioeconomic status of the custodial parent. I am using the term custodial parent, but we know that the majority of custodial parents in the country are women and that the majority of single women with children are living in poverty. These children must be supported first and foremost by both parents. They must, if possible, be assisted in support by the state wherever it can be done. This is where the working income supplement will apply.

When families break up it is generally the children who suffer. As a physician who has spent 25 years in practice, I can say that children suffer greatly. Many children of divorce who live with the mother do not have the same access to post-secondary education that other children have. We know many of these children are living pretty close to the poverty line. They are a shared responsibility. It is the right of the child to be financially supported by both parents.

We would then create a system where families would still be united. But there are divorced parents and the children, therefore, live in different status purely because they happen through no fault of their own to be living in a divorced situation. Children should not have to bear the brunt of that. There should not be two classes of children in this country.

The government applied gender based analyses to these reforms to ensure that neither women nor men are unfairly disadvantaged by the legislation. We have ensured that the outcome of the changes are fair and equitable to both men and women.

The child support strategy rests on four very important pillars. One is the tax treatment of support payments for children. I want to stress the tax treatment of support payments for children, not of spousal support. We are talking only of child support. We have set up guidelines that will make it clear across the country that we are no longer going to have to depend on the discretion of lawyers, judges or courts. It will be a fair system of guidelines, based on the income of the non-custodial parent. It takes into consideration whether the non-custodial parent can afford to pay or not. It also makes very clear that afford to pay does not mean that child support for a non-custodial parent comes after the car, the holidays and the investments, but that child support is considered as one of the first and foremost duties of the non-custodial parent and not as a second thought.

These guidelines are clear, equitable and they will be the same no matter where those people pay live in this country. It takes into consideration the cost of living, the standard of living and the tax treatments of each province. Different provinces will have clear guidelines for what the non-custodial parent must pay, based on the number of children, as a percentage of the income of the non-custodial parent.

The third pillar on which this rests is enforcement of child support guidelines and child support, period. We know that many children do not get child support. This is a major problem. I do not think hon. members across in the third party would disagree that enforcement is extremely important.

The fourth pillar is the working income supplement. This is the so-called tax grab that the hon. member just spoke about. We know that by changing the tax treatment of child support the federal government will receive a windfall of money. That money is not going back into federal government coffers. After $50 million of that money has been taken to set up the data bases and to assist provinces to get this going, the rest will go into a working income supplement which will assist 700,000 children.

As a state we need to ensure that our children are clearly supported and that our children are treated equally whether their parents can afford to or not. Children are the future of this country.

The first pillar of change is the way in which the child support system is taxed. This system has been place for 54 years. It has become outdated. It was an inequitable system which said parents who live together and who are bringing up a family do not get to tax deduct the money they spend on their children, but if they become divorced all of a sudden their child because a tax deductible expense. This did not make any sense at all because it was creating an uneven playing field.

It was saying that if you were divorced it was better for you to be able to support your child because you got the tax deduction. If you live together as a family you were in fact being discriminated against in terms of caring for your children because caring for your children is not a tax deductible expense. It is not an expense of business. It is not a discretionary expense. It is a duty and a responsibility for parents.

Under the new system the full amount of the support payments can be used to care for the child so that when a custodial parent is given a sum of money that custodial parent knows that all of that money is going to the child and that some of it does not have to go back to Revenue Canada so that the child only gets part of the money.

Child support payment under a written agreement or court order made on after May 1 will therefore not be deductible to the payer or included in the income of the recipient for tax purposes. This has finally given us an equitable system and not a system that is based on the fact that if the custodial parent can afford a good lawyer, then the custodial parent gets a better amount of money for the child.

We know that many custodial parents did have the money and it really rested on who could afford the better lawyer. This has been taken away now. The system is going to be fair and equitable and that is the second component of the pillars of this legislation. The guidelines are clearly set and clearly written down so that there is no more trying to see who could argue their way out of the paper bag that we have had in the past in terms of how child support has been accepted.

The tax rules, however, will not automatically apply to existing orders. Governments cannot unilaterally change support agreements between parents negotiated on the basis of another set of rules. This is not going to be grandfathered. We know that if parents are not happy with the way their child support has been structured they can go back and seek to change it and bring it under the new rules if they work together to do that and if they work together in the best interests of the child.

Implementation of the new rules will not take effect until the spring for two very important reasons. First, we expect there will be a large increase in applications to change existing orders to conform to the new child support rules because in many cases much of the child support that is today given is not being enforced and is not enough. It would cause chaos if the federal government did not have the provinces to establish a more efficient way to deal with the sudden influx of support orders.

For that reason we have established a $50 million fund that will be used in partnership with the provincial government to develop, pilot and implement efficient and cost-effective mechanisms to help parents obtain, vary and update their awards.

The second reason for leaving the implementation until May 1997 brings me to the second pillar of child support. The implementation date allows us time to enact federal child support guidelines. These guidelines are going to make the system equitable.

If I could sum up this bill in one phrase it would be that child support is the single most important thing that we can do for our children tomorrow. This legislation introduces a number of measures that the provinces and the territories can draw on in partnership with the federal government to enforce support payments.

Federal pensions can be diverted so that we can garnishee from a federal employee who is not paying child support. We can garnishee out of that federal employee packages, whether it be pension funds or some sort of benefit funds, in order to ensure the child gets the support.

Revenue Canada's data base will now be used for the federal information network so that we can track defaulters. In other words, they can move from province to province and they can run but they cannot hide.

Passports and even certain federal licences can be suspended if a debtor is in persistent arrears. We will develop finally a standardized data base across this country so that there will be compliance with the support orders in Canada.

This will help both levels of government to design more effective mechanisms for support enforcement. In addition, the legislation provides for measures to help the provinces streamline the collection of out of province orders. In these ways the federal government will help the provinces to pursue what is really their jurisdiction which is to support enforcement programs.

Although it is not covered in this legislation it will be noted that the fourth pillar of our child support strategy is the doubling of the working income supplement of the federal child tax benefit. This is the tax grab the hon. member across spoke about and conveniently ignored, that the money is to be going over the next five years, half a billion dollars, to support approximately 700,000 low income working families. About one-third of these families are single parents. These single parent families are predominantly led by women and they predominantly live in poverty.

We as a government are making a very strong statement. We are saying that we as Canadians, all of us, whether we have children or not, whether we are living together with our children or not, owe it to all Canadian children to prepare them for the future, to prepare them for tomorrow, to give them equal opportunity so they can realize their fullest potential, so we do not continue to foster two sets of levels of children, those who have and those who do not have and who will be the people we look to carry this country forward in the next century. If we do not give them the tools and the skills, if we do not give all our children the opportunity and value our children, we are not truly looking to our future for tomorrow.

The four pillars in our child support strategy reinforce one another. These changes have long been overdue. The government has studied these issues carefully and we have worked closely with all the stakeholders, not only the public but accountants, men and women, and lawyers to talk about this issue and to find the right answers. This is not a thrown together piece of legislation, as hon. members across the floor would have us believe. This was discussed in public hearings. I do not know if the hon. members even went to the public hearings or even listened to some of the information we heard from men and women who spoke on behalf of the children of this country.

More important, our children deserve the right to be treated fairly. They deserve the right not to have to be forced to live with

the consequences of what their parents have done and with the power struggles between parents as we have seen in the past. Our children deserve to be given every opportunity. This bill does exactly that for all our children.

[Controlled Drugs And Substances Act, June 20th, 1996]

moved:

That the amendments proposed by the Senate to Bill C-8, an act respecting the control of certain drugs, their precursors and other substances and to amend certain other acts and repeal the Narcotic Control Act in consequence thereof, be read the second time and concurred in.

[Criminal Code, June 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asks a very interesting question. Not being a lawyer, I can say it is often very difficult to interpret laws. However, in many instances when a law is made or

it is generic enough that it can affect people who in the course of their duties are doing something that is in fact for the health of someone but could be interpreted as otherwise they need to have some sort of protection.

It may very well be that when we speak of doing any sort of operation on a woman or on a child for their health there are many different operations that can be done. For example, in instances where a child or an adult whose external sexual organs do not function properly it may be necessary to do certain operations that would enable them to function properly. This is very different from what female genital mutilation is all about. That is an operation which prevents them from functioning properly.

There is a fine line between things we may need to do to enhance a person's health, which is not necessarily mutilation. There are a lot of operations in medicine in which one has to open up certain areas so that the woman can menstruate properly. One wants to be sure that a physician doing some of those operations for the health of the patient does not have to be seen to be committing female genital mutilation. I believe this would have to be done on a case by case basis where one would clearly define what the person is doing.

I thank the hon. member very much for that extremely important question.

[Criminal Code, June 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I understand what the hon. member is addressing. I cannot support the complete elimination of this section of the Criminal Code. We have to look at how to deal with the issue in a different way. We cannot just look at how the law deals with specific individuals.

The law must be broad in its range. Justice must be meted out in accordance with the crime. Has the person been rehabilitated? Serial murderers cannot be lumped in with people who may have committed a single murder. The circumstances of the murder must be looked at. The families of victims must be consulted as well as the people in the communities who were there at the time of the murder. It must be looked at in a more comprehensive way rather than a knee-jerk reaction to something which could be meaningful. If a decision is made that is going to cut a deep swath in society, we may be doing more harm than good.

[Criminal Code, June 10th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I rise today obviously to speak in favour of Bill C-27, an act to amend the Criminal Code.

At the outset I congratulate my colleague, the Minister of Justice, for championing a bill designed to improve the Criminal Code provisions in four key areas vital to the health and safety of women and children both in Canada and around the world.

I speak to this bill both as Secretary of State for the Status of Women and as a physician who has, in every one of the four aspects of this legislation, seen firsthand the results of this type of imbalance of power in society. The four aspects of this legislation are child sex tourism, child prostitution in Canada, criminal harassment and female genital mutilation.

Hon. members will recall that many of the amendments before us were introduced in the last session as Bill C-119. Since the new session we have added a new section relating to child sex tourism and a further amendment relating to child prostitution in Canada.

There are four things the bill has in common. They speak to the issue of systemic violence in society, particularly against women and children, and the commitment of the government to removing that violence.

Last year in Beijing at the fourth world conference there was a great deal of support for this issue of dealing with systemic violence, not simply by legislation but by dealing with systemic violence at its roots.

Systemic violence requires strong comprehensive provisions that will deal not only with the legal components of this but also with issues that have to do with sensitizing the population, with prevention, with education, with treating the person who is harassed or violated and with dealing with the rehabilitation of the violator or the harassor. These things are very important if we are to put an end to this kind of violence in society. While this is an important component of a comprehensive strategy, it is not the only component.

As well, many of these issues of violence stem from roots that have to do with cultural and religious backgrounds, with social issues which make violence a traditional imbalance of power in our society. Those in society who have very little support, who have very little voice to speak for themselves, who have very little autonomy and independence are the ones who are traditionally the victims of violence. We can see in all four of these issues they tend to deal with women and children who are still among the people in society who cannot speak for themselves or who cannot defend themselves.

In Beijing it was clearly stated religion is not an excuse for mutilation and for violence.

I urge everyone in the House to support the bill. Going abroad to have sex with children is exploitation at its worst, at its most shameful. It means we will not do in this country certain things we feel ashamed of, and we go to another country where we can be hidden by anonymity to exploit and abuse other people's children.

The Criminal Code already addresses certain aspects of sex tourism. Section 212 could, now that we have seen it in its full entirety as an amendment, affect tour operators, travel agents and agencies offering sex tours. Subsection 1(a) deals with specifically providing or attempting to procure whether in or out of Canada, and that obviously refers to those who would set up tours or agencies which would allow people to go on this kind of venture. Subsection 1(g) deals with entering or leaving Canada for the purpose of prostitution. This is an indictable offence which will be given not less than ten years.

Canadians are seen as role models to the world. For us as a country to allow Canadians to go across the world to exploit and violate children is absolutely unacceptable. The bill sends a clear signal that this behaviour is unacceptable at home and it is unacceptable abroad, especially with the extraterritorial provisions in the bill.

Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Belgium, France, Germany, Australia, New Zealand and the United States have already adopted legislation which permits prosecution of nationals for sexual activities with children. A world congress against sexual exploitation of children will be held in Stockholm, Sweden on August 27 of this year. Canada will send government representatives. The congress is expected to develop a declaration and a plan of action.

Clearly there is an international environment which upholds the principles we in Canada have included in the amendments to this bill.

Bill C-27 further amends section 7 of the Criminal Code allowing proceedings in Canada against Canadian citizens who engage in activities associated with child prostitution when they are outside the country. This is an issue of morality. It is an issue of human rights.

The second component of the amendments deals with changing these things at home. As my mother used to say, charity begins at home. It would be hypocrisy for us to make provisions which would create a problem for people who go abroad and not deal with the people at home who continue to exploit children.

These amendments will make the pimping of a child under 18 an aggravated offence and will look at those who procure children under the age of 18 and those who use violence. When we talk about systemic violence we are talking about an imbalance of power. The perpetrators will use that power and violence to make those children under 18 continue to prostitute themselves.

The amendment will deal with a very important component in the imbalance of power, where fear and anxiety play a major part. Many people who have been exploited in this kind of system are afraid to speak against their abuser or their exploiter. In this case, it will be made easier for children to testify behind a screen so that they do not have to be afraid of what might occur after they have testified.

The third component of the amendment makes it illegal to cause someone to fear for their safety or the safety of someone unknown to them by following them, by threatening them, by communicating threats to them either at home or at work. This amendment is important because it will ensure that murder committed while stalking will now be seen to be first degree murder whether or not it can be proven that it was planned and deliberate.

The penalty for first degree murder is 25 years with no parole. This is really important because in the past the argument was always made that the person did not intend to go ahead and do this, that it happened by mistake and was a crime of passion. Stalking clearly says that a person is seeking to threaten and harm someone. Now that person should be made responsible.

Finally, the fourth component of this bill deals with female genital mutilation. This is a very complex and sensitive issue because it deals with cultural and religious beliefs. However, it has become an international cause celebre. The World Health Organization, UNICEF, United Nations and Beijing discussed this issue and decided that it was absolutely unacceptable to use religion or culture as a reason to inflict violence on anyone.

As a physician, I can say that female genital mutilation is not violence against children or against women solely. It also carries with it the health problem of chronic pain, chronic pelvic inflammatory disease, chronic disease that a woman has to live with for the rest of her life making her an invalid in many instances. This is violence and abusive power at its worst because religion is used to say that someone must succumb to this kind of violence.

Paragraph 232 of the platform for action at Beijing requires governments to prohibit female genital mutilation wherever it exists and gives vigorous support to efforts among non-government and community organizations and religious institutions to eliminate such practices.

While I said earlier that we require comprehensive plans and strategies to deal with the issue, legislation is one of them. Education, sensitivity training and awareness must be a component. Status of Women Canada, the Solicitor General and Health Canada have been working with communities and grassroots organizations to deal with this issue.

We have found that communities which have been subjected to some of these violent episodes such as female genital mutilation, it is very difficult for people to speak out. It is very difficult for them to speak against what is a religious practice, especially when they live in these communities.

Dealing with these issues on the ground and going out into the communities is very important. We need to talk about systemic violence, not only in terms of legislation but in terms of setting clear, comprehensive, holistic strategies where we work across departments, where we work across governmental levels and where we work within the community and with NGOs to ensure that we deal with these issues fully.

At this time, the Criminal Code prohibits female genital mutilation in Canada. It also prohibits having a child removed from Canada to have female genital mutilation performed. The Criminal Code states that it is illegal. One cannot remove a person from the country in order to perform an illegal act.

This amendment clarifies this. It also adds the very strong educational and sensitivity component we were talking about earlier by defining female genital mutilation as aggravated assault.

Maiming and wounding a person is not a cultural practice. Anyone under 18 cannot consent or have any person consent to having this terrible act done on them.

Underlying all these four amendments to the Criminal Code is something very important. It speaks to removing that imbalance of power that is systemic in our society today. It is a way of warning abusers in positions of authority or trust who abuse through religion or parenting. In many instances, children as young as five years of age have been subjected to child sex tourism in some countries of the world. This is not sex tourism. It is pedophilia.

The exploitation and abuse of those who are at the lowest rung of the ladder, women and children, must be stopped. I see this bill as being a step in dealing with the issue.

I urge everyone in the House to vote for the bill. Let us continue to work on other ways to bring about, not only legislation, but comprehensive strategies so that this country can be a safe place for women and their children and eventually the world will no longer exploit them.

[Tobacco Products Control Act, June 4th, 1996]

Let me answer your question. If the hon. member would allow me to answer he might learn something.

The government increased the tobacco health tax that went straight into health funding. That has been something for which anti-smoking advocates have asked for a long long time. We were the first people to do it.

Legislation was also brought in that dealt with banning kiddy packs. Other legislation in effect banned the use of tobacco in vending machines so that tobacco was brought almost alongside alcohol in terms of where it could be bought. It cannot be sold anywhere unless the person is not a minor. So it would only be in bars where you cannot go until you are over 19.

The age limit was increased for people bringing tobacco into the country. All of that was brought in when we brought in this legislation. It is a comprehensive set of strategies. It is interesting that we would only talk about this issue.

Banning the advertising of cigarettes is something that Canada took the lead in. These are things that have been questioned by the tobacco industry. One of the things that we now know is that when we talked about sponsorship in terms of advertising we said that tobacco companies could not promote and sponsor tobacco because of course of the Supreme Court rulings. They could do it only as a corporate entity. The tobacco companies changed their corporate logo to their tobacco logo and got around that legislation.

This is something that we have been moving forward on for years as a country. Every time we move forward, something comes up to block us in terms of legislation and the Supreme Court.

We continue to keep struggling to move forward on this issue because of legalities. The will is there. The political will has been shown. There are legalities that we constantly have to move around. There is research that we are doing to help us to do this.

[Tobacco Products Control Act, June 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting statement made by the hon. member. I do not know if he has been present for the last two and a half years around this place or not.

If the hon. member would recall when the tax on tobacco was lowered, not by 50 per cent I might add, some other comprehensive things were done to mitigate that. There was a health tax. It was the first time any country in the world put on a health tax on tobacco.