Hedy Fry

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

Mr. Speaker, I think that is an excellent question and I thank the hon. member for asking it.

Before I came here, as a physician I was passionate about smoking cessation and anti-smoking legislation and used every single tool in the arsenal I could think of to stop smoking.

What is interesting is that I saw this from the perspective of a physician. When I came to the House of Commons I realized there are many perspectives to legislation and to things we do as a government and as politicians. I realized what we had done by increasing our tobacco taxes to the extent that what we now had was a prohibition versus what was happening in the United States, was we were having the smuggling of cigarettes and young people were beginning to smoke not only because cigarettes were cheap but because they were now smoking something that was exciting. It was a smuggled product, something they should not be using. This presented a totally different perspective and point of view to the whole issue.

We have to try in everything we do to balance effects and counterbalance negative effects. It is like when we push something on one side, we give on the other side. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Balancing those actions in the best interest of the health of Canadians is what we were talking about when we looked at bringing down the tobacco taxes.

However, something very important, which the hon. member did not mention, is that it was the first time a country had slapped a health tax on a manufacturer and put the money back into health. That was one of the things I fought for as well before I came here.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me as the member of Parliament for Vancouver Centre and as a physician to speak in support of Bill C-24.

Members have heard the hon. parliamentary secretary speak about the details of the bill. On the surface it might seem the bill is just about labelling and information but it is more than that. This bill is more than simple words on a piece of paper or on a bit of cardboard. It is about what those words say. It is about what those words mean and how important those words are to the user of this product.

What those words describe is what I want to discuss during my time in this debate. Let me start with a short list: carbon monoxide, lead, hydrogen cyanide, benzene, arsenic. These are all deadly components. Each one of them can kill. They are just five of the more than 4,000 chemical compounds scientists have found in tobacco smoke. They are just five of the compounds that contribute to the over 40,000 deaths a year caused by tobacco use.

How do these Canadians die? They die of lung cancer, bladder cancer, heart disease, aneurysms, pneumonia, emphysema, sudden infant death syndrome and fire. There are over 22 diseases associated with smoking and the effects of smoking know no age barrier. Health Canada estimates that the dangers of low birth weight and chronic respiratory illness show that smoking affects the fetus in utero. About 200 infants under the age of one died in 1991 as a result of exposure to tobacco smoke, secondhand smoke. Death from cancer is no surprise because tobacco smoke contains more than 50 known carcinogens. Lung cancer has now overtaken breast cancer as the number one cause of death among women.

The health impact goes further. Scientists have discovered that other chemical compounds found in tobacco smoke actually cause permanent changes to the genetic material of living cells and hence to the fetus. These compounds come from a variety of sources. About half of these compounds appear naturally in green tobacco leaves. The other half comes from the chemical reactions that come from combustion. Some compounds are produced as part of the curing of tobacco.

Smokers may not realize that when they look at the smoke curling up from their cigarettes what they see constitutes less than 10 per cent of the output of that cigarette. What they do not see is more frightening, the gases and even liquids produced by the burning tobacco and the paper.

We need to tell Canadians about the impact of these toxic compounds on their bodies. We need to tell them about the carbon monoxide produced when tobacco burns, this colourless, odourless gas that kills because it starves the body of oxygen.

A cigarette is an incinerator producing hundreds of chemicals, including tar, cancer causing tar, as it should be rightly known. We need to tell Canadians that cancer causing tar in tobacco products contains hundreds of chemicals, some of which are actually hazardous waste. We need to inform Canadians their bodies are not and should not be toxic waste dumps.

The list of toxic constituents in cigarettes goes on and on. We need to tell Canadians about ammonia. It may be great for household training but it could increase the odds of getting viral illness, and so it does with smokers. It can aggravate chronic respiratory conditions in both a smoker and those around a smoker breathing in that second hand smoke.

We need to tell Canadians about hydrogen cyanide. This is among the most toxic of the components in the witch's brew that comes out of tobacco smoke. Short term exposure to hydrogen cyanide can lead to headaches, dizziness, nausea and vomiting, and yet we continue to do this in small amounts every day when we smoke cigarettes.

We need to tell Canadians about lead. We know how much governments have tried to cut lead emissions because of the harm they can cause children. Lead is found in tobacco smoke to which children are exposed. As we have made laws and regulations as governments to get rid of lead in the environment, lesser known sources of lead become very important. One of these sources is cigarettes.

Not only smokers but children living with smokers have shown to have elevated blood levels. Canadian children are being exposed daily to a substance that has been linked to sudden infant death syndrome, low birth weight, birth defects, allergies, learning problems, chronic respiratory disease and adult asthma.

The information we now have on the toxic constituents of tobacco products is the result of a generation of research. We are learning every day more and more about the hazardous effects of this product. Research projects funded by the tobacco demand reduction strategy, which examined the trends over the last 25 years of the nicotine content of cigarettes and in tobacco smoke using cigarette samples that have been collected and stored over the past two decades, have shown us that between 1968 and 1989 the level of nicotine in tobacco used in cigarettes has increased by 53 per cent. The average amount of tobacco used in each cigarette has decreased by 14 per cent. The level of nicotine in tobacco smoke fluctuated significantly at several points during the study period.

Other trends in the marketing of tobacco products have affected the level of exposure of smokers to other toxic substances. The cigarette filter was the first of these trends. Some of my hon. colleagues may remember a time when most cigarettes were unfiltered. It was hardly surprising that most people found them harsh and hard on the throat. Filters have been introduced, some with flavours such as menthol. However, we must not forget that tobacco smoke is harsh. It is a chemical soup that is bad for everyone.

Another important trend in the growth of tobacco products is the so-called light or low yield cigarettes which reduce the amount of smoke inhaled by smokers. On the surface this would seem to be a terrific thing. The less smokers inhale, obviously the lower the risk. It is not that simple. These light cigarettes may encourage people to keep smoking and even to smoke more. They can appear to be healthier than other tobacco products. By picking up any American magazine we can see that light cigarettes are marketed in a manner that creates the appearance the manufacturer is trying to address the concerns of smokers about health issues and to reach out to women. The recent books, articles and exposés about tobacco marketing point this out again and again, and yet this attempt to confuse the facts continues to this day.

The survey of smoking in Canada funded by the Health Canada tobacco demand reduction strategy shows that smokers make certain assumptions about a cigarette that is labelled as light. The survey of smoking in Canada found that slightly less than 35 per cent of Canadian smokers assumed that light means less tar. About 45 per cent believed that light means less nicotine. They may be right in some cases but they may not be in others. If there is any reduction it is marginal at best.

Smoking a light or mild cigarette is like jumping off a 20 storey building instead of a 30 storey building. The result is the same. Light and mild are just marketing subjective terms referring to taste and aroma and have no real meaning at all from a health perspective.

The perception that mild cigarettes may be safer points out an important issue in the debate. How should we regulate tobacco products so they can say what they mean so the user is fully and objectively informed of the product itself?

Some people have suggested we should bring in legislation that limits tobacco to certain amounts of tar and nicotine. In effect they want us to enforce a certain degree of lightness for all tobacco products. Research into smoking behaviour suggests regulating the lightness of cigarettes might have the opposite effect. It can lull smokers into believing they can take comfort from the fact that each cigarette would have a lower quantity of the bad stuff in it, they can smoke more and be no worse off than they are now. Some people might even take up smoking under the mistaken and potentially tragic belief it was now safe to do so because the cigarette is so light.

A variety of methods will be needed if we as a society are to understand and address the reasons so many people smoke. We need to appreciate that people smoke for reasons that appear to be rooted in psychological and socio-environmental factors, as well as the physiological addiction to nicotine.

However, product and outcome information is an important element in helping smokers stop smoking. That is the point of Bill C-24. Information is not always enough. It is only one part of a comprehensive public health approach to smoking cessation. It does and has helped many Canadians give up tobacco and deterred young Canadians from starting to smoke. Information will continue to help Canadians to understand the facts about tobacco disease. Understanding what they are smoking and what they are putting into their mouths is very important in understanding how it can harm them.

If the health warnings the bill makes possible encourage even a few people a day to follow through and quit smoking, they are achieving their purposes. We will do more research and gather more evidence about the impact of tobacco smoke on the human body. As we do this we can use the mechanisms set up in Bill C-24 in our warnings against users to improve and increase the kind of information on the packages. This bill is only the start.

Under the blueprint for tobacco control the government has indicated a number of measures and approaches within a comprehensive strategy which are worth considering. Do not forget, looking at tobacco cessation is part of a general public health strategy. Public health strategies deal with prevention, education, awareness, information, treatment of disease, rehabilitation from the disease. This is part of a major comprehensive strategy to look at the use of tobacco. The toxic constituents of tobacco smoke will therefore continue to be part of that information arsenal we must employ.

I know members will say the information may seem like the same old message. It is not. Health researchers have learned more and more about tobacco since the first time we put messages on the tobacco packages. We know far more about smoking and what it does to our health. We can now confirm that smoking is bad for the smoker but, even worse, smoking is just as bad for the non-smoker.

It is very important to note that 350 non-smoking Canadians a year die due to diseases caused by second hand smoke. Every year over 40,000 Canadians, over 3 million smokers in the world, die as a result of tobacco smoking; 5,000 people a year in my province of British Columbia alone die as a result of smoking. We see all the morbidity and the disease which cost the health care substantial amounts as people are smoking more and more.

Getting that information to the smoker and the non-smoker, the lethal negative issues of this product, is extremely important. One of the ways we can do it is through health warnings on cigarette packages. This would be a step in the right direction. Placing labels on and inserts in cigarette packages is an important public health initiative. It is an important part of education and prevention strategies. I urge all hon. members to support the bill and to help prevent the most preventable cause of death and disease in the world.

[Canada Pension Plan, June 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that question.

In fact 60 per cent of seniors are women and this number is going to increase as the years go by. This issue is very important to their economic independence. The Status of Women Canada, with the Caledon Institute, has looked at the data analysis of the impact of CPP on women. This process is supported by my colleague, the Minister of Finance.

We found that pay and work issues are very different for women and men. Survivor, child bearing and certain benefits impact more specifically on women. Since CPP is a joint federal-provincial-territorial issue, at the federal-provincial-territorial ministers meeting last week, the ministers all agreed that they would go to their ministers of finance and ask them to consider the impact of CPP on women.

[Supply, May 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I did not speak clearly enough or perhaps I did not enunciate the principles well enough. I thought that is exactly what I just answered in my speech, that the two Houses are separate and that they are accountable and autonomous within their own right.

I suppose that if one repeats that statement over the course of today it might finally sink in.

[Supply, May 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the concept of accountability is obviously very foreign to the Reform Party. In discussing the issue of women's programs we have been meeting as a department with women around the country for the last two months to discuss how

we can change our programs so that they will meet the real needs of women in their real lives.

This is something that is called accountability. It means starting from the bottom up. Talk about hypocrisy. When we talk about a party that has said that women's issues are special interest groups, it is really unbelievable to have this question asked by the member of the Reform Party.

[Supply, May 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, no one, least of all the government, disagrees with accountability. We have practised it ever since we came into power.

What we speak to is that the other place is accountable within its own right and within its own jurisdiction. This House is also accountable within its own rights and within its own jurisdiction.

[Supply, May 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate the motion which I will not repeat because of its verbosity. This is a motion brought forward by the Reform Party which clearly demonstrates

yet again how out of touch that party is with the issues of concern to Canadians.

Today we could be lending our collective wisdom to find a solution to the issues of concern to the women of this country, violence, economic independence for them and their children, access to work. Then I forget the Reform Party considers women to be a special interest group and not worthy of its attention.

Today when the government is meeting with groups across the country to discuss pension reform which would secure the retirement of Canadian seniors, the House could be lending its wisdom to that discussion from the perspective of our constituents, we are wasting our time with arcana.

Instead of discussing issues related to the economy and the concerns of youth and safety of homes and communities, we have before us a motion which demonstrates a profound ignorance of one of the basic principles of our Constitution, that the two Houses of Parliament are independent of one another and self-regulating within their own sphere of authority.

I intend to speak further to these issues, but I must ask why this motion and why today. Where are the priorities of the Reform Party? I suspect we could spend the day listening to speeches extolling the virtues of Senate renewal, Reform style. A worthy enough topic. Let us get our priorities straight. Why not talk of employment equity issues, especially when Canadians are still in a state of anxiety that some may have to work at the back of the shop?

Today's motion reminds me of the distinction lawyers make frequently between the law as it is and the law as it should be. Everyone in Canada agrees Senate reform would be a worthwhile undertaking. Yet when Senate reform was proposed in the Charlottetown accord years ago, that party was adamantly opposed to it. Why? It was unable to deal with multiple issues at the same time. It was unable to prioritise or find common ground. I guess this motion today shows it still has not learned.

For the present, however, we have a Senate, we have a Constitution and we have the benefit of centuries of precedents governing relations between upper and lower houses in parliamentary democracies. As we know, the parliamentary tradition has helped to build one of the best countries in the world. While there is need for reform, there are other issues which should have priority, issues that go to the heart of the social and economic union and concerns which affect all Canadians, issues which touch Canadians where they live.

Reform instead would have us focus on the academic dissertation of the relationship between the two Houses of our bicameral legislature. It almost puts me to sleep just to talk about it.

The motion has the potential to disrupt the relationship of mutual respect and co-operation which exists between our two Houses at this time, which is supported by centuries of precedents in Canada and the mother of parliaments. What is that relationship?

Today's motion is about the operation of the other place. Learned scholars of Parliament and constitutional law refer frequently to the right of each House to regulate its own internal affairs and procedures free from interference. That is one of the basic truths of our Constitution. The House of Commons and the Senate are equal within our parliamentary system. Convention and practices temper interaction between the Senate and this House. In law our two Houses are largely equal.

For example, the approval of the Senate is required to enact any bill. In the same vein, our Constitution cannot be amended without the involvement of the Senate.

Part V of the Canada Act, 1982, the amending formula, states the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting senators cannot be amended without Senate participation, not to mention the approval of the provincial legislatures.

There are exceptions to this principle, for example section 53 of the Constitution Act, 1867, and section 47 of the Canada Act, 1982, dealing with money bills and the suspension veto. However, I will not go into those details.

I will now turn from powers to the privileges of Parliament. We find that the privileges of the Senate correspond completely with those we enjoy. One can see this merely by examining section 18 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which states that the privileges of the Senate and the House of Commons flow from the ancient lineage of the mother of parliaments, the British parliamentary system. The party opposite always seems to confuse the parliamentary system with that of the system to the south.

The principle of independence, equality and autonomy of each House can easily be ascertained by examining the works of the most respected students of Parliament. For example, page 141 of the 21st edition of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice states:

Since the two Houses are wholly independent of each other, neither House can claim, much less exercise, any authority over a member or officer of the other, and thus cannot punish any breach of privilege or contempt offered to it by such member or officer.

This is not a new principle. Members opposite have been here long enough to understand the relationship. Or maybe it is beyond them.

It is therefore difficult to understand the basis of this motion today, which is to take up a whole day of discussion, when there are so many issues of concern to Canadians.

I have spoken on the law of Parliament and its privilege, but I would be remiss if I did not draw to the attention of the House the conventions which animate our Constitution, and I will do so now.

The subtle but most important convention which governs the Senate in exercising its authority is based on the very same principle of democratic accountability referred to in the motion under debate. This convention recognizes that in its key legislative role, the role of the Senate is secondary to that of the elected House of Commons.

Professor Peter Hogg, a leading scholar of the Canadian Constitution, illustrated this point in the second edition of his text "Constitutional Law of Canada". It is accepted by opposition as well as government senators that the appointed nature of the Senate must necessarily make its role subordinate to the elected House. The result is that very few government bills are rejected or substantially amended by the Senate. This convention clearly limits how the authority of the Senate may be exercised but through oversight or misunderstanding did not restrain Reform members from encouraging the Senate to reject the firearms bill after it had been approved by this House. There is a double standard already at work here.

However, the issue before us today is much narrower than Senate reform or even the present role of the Senate. The issue is whether the Senate is the master of its own internal affairs, and that is undeniable. This result is dictated by the constitutional law of Canada and the conventions governing its application. Once again, we are wasting a whole day discussing issues we can not in any way hope to change in this debate today.

What do these principles mean? Do they affirm that the Senate shares the privileges of this House and the autonomy enjoyed by this House? Yes, they do. Do they provide definitive answers to resolve disputes which may arise between the Houses? No, they do not, but we are not faced with a dispute, not yet at least. Were we to endorse today's motion, however, we might be.

We have been asked to consider a hypothetical motion and we all know that hypothetical debates can be very unproductive. Does this matter to the Reform Party? I do not think so. What is not hypothetical are the bedrock principles of the Constitution which provide for two independent self-regulating Houses of Parliament. The government is not prepared to jettison this principle today. This is not to say the status quo cannot be approved. We supported the ambitious package of changes, including Senate reform, contained in the Charlottetown accord.

As stated in the speech from the throne in February, the government believes the desire for change is broadly shared across Canada. The government intends to focus priority issues and positive issues to prepare Canadians for the 21st century, initiatives that will improve the lives of Canadians and which would bring them economic prosperity, jobs, equality, social justice, security in their retirement and safe communities.

When I debate this motion and we talk about the issues of concern here, instead of debating a motion that is negative and very poorly prioritized, akin to decorating the living room while the roof needs repair, what we want to deal with are issues that are of real concern to Canadians, issues that would change their lives and make the country move forward into the 21st century and prosper. That of course is too much for the Reform Party to deal with because it does not have any answers to those problems.

[Status Of Women, May 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as Secretary of State for the Status of Women, I am very pleased that women are marching across the country for bread and roses, jobs and justice.

When we went to Beijing last year we brought many of the objectives these women are marching for. We agreed in Beijing that there is a role for non-governmental organizations and women's groups to work with government to bring gender issues to the fore. That is why I am very pleased these women are using their role as NGOs to bring forward issues that will promote the equality of women across Canada.

[Referendums, May 13th, 1996]

Get to the question.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of the employment insurance legislation before the House.

The bill is key to our government's commitment to the reform of the social security system. As Secretary of State for the Status of Women and as a B.C. MP, I am pleased to say fairness and inclusiveness are hallmarks of the bill. It retools the outdated Unemployment Insurance Act of 1971 for our times.

In the 1990s structural unemployment created a new problem that the old UI system had not been designed to address. Through no fault of their own, workers were being laid off and found it difficult to get permanent work. There are many reasons for this, not the least of which is the advent of a new era of technological and information based industries.

The end result was that UI, which was meant to assist workers through temporary short term job displacement, was ill equipped to respond to the frequent recurrent, and in some cases permanent, job loss characteristic of structural unemployment.

The only way to deal with structural unemployment, as the rest of the industrial world is beginning to find out, is to become relevant to the new industrial reality. To do this means retraining and providing workers with the tools and skills for the new world of work. Canadians want to work, to be independent economically and to provide the infrastructure for Canada's competitiveness in the global economy.

This bill creates a new and modern employment insurance system for Canadians who agree we need to realign our social programs and who want these changes made with fairness and with flexibility, with a human face.

Canadians have had a direct hand in shaping this reform and the result is an insurance plan that focuses on employment, training and entrepreneurship, not unemployment. This new system will help more Canadians prepare for, find and keep work in the new economy, and goes so far as to create jobs.

One of the most significant features of this reform is that while 96 per cent of current UI recipients will still be eligible, 500,000 new claimants will be able to receive benefits, a majority of whom are women and youth.

The new bill also recognizes the regional diversity of the country. For the first time, fewer hours will be required to qualify in high unemployment areas such as northern B.C. and the maritimes. The bill recognizes for the first time the inherent differences in the work patterns of men and women and seeks to remedy them.

The evolution of women's aspiration for equality has created a different dynamic in the workforce. Today women make up 45 per cent of the paid workforce.

Women have become such a force in the labour market in the past 25 years that addressing issues of interest to women means addressing the numerous characteristics of the new economy, issues such as nontraditional work, conflicts between job and family responsibilities, and various models for entering the work force.

Women tend to work fewer hours than men and to earn less. They are more likely to be in nontraditional jobs.

The new EI recognizes the different realities of women and men because it is the first major federal initiative designed with the benefit of formal gender analysis. I point out how this has been reflected in Bill C-12.

One of the major strengths of this legislation is the move from weeks of work to hours of work as the basis of the plan. In today's fluid job market the week is no longer the best measure of labour force participation. The hour is a more accurate measure of work effort since it will acknowledge the efforts of all part time workers who put in under 15 hours of work a week, often doing so in more than one job, and who were not allowed to participate in the benefits other workers enjoyed. Now premiums are paid from the first hour worked. Every hour counts toward a claim.

For the first time women may be able to qualify for maternity, parental and other special benefits they were previously ineligible for. Almost 70 per cent of part time workers are women. This change means 500,000 more Canadians will have their work insured for the first time. Concerns have been raised that if women in this position cannot get more hours of work they will lose their claim to maternity or parental benefits.

Gender based analysis showed that at most 2 per cent of current maternity claimants would need to work longer to qualify for these special benefits but that they will get them. Also, now that every hour counts, employers will have less reason to limit the hours of their part time workers as they did in the past. Many Canadians who hold down multiple jobs will be eligible for EI for the very first time.

Another group of workers who will benefit under the new system are seasonal workers, 38 per cent of whom comprise the B.C. workforce. These people working in logging, mining, fisheries, tourism and construction. They often have a gap in the off season which breaks up their continuous weeks of work criteria. Now, not only will they carry over for up to a 26 week gap, but the hour system will increase their eligibility by recognizing the intensity of their work over the on season.

Bill C-12 will help low income Canadians. Some 350,000 Canadians with family incomes of less than $26,000 a year will be eligible for the family income supplement. Two-thirds of these are women who will receive a top up for up to 13 per cent of their benefit. They will be able to keep a foot in the job market door by supplementing their benefits by $50 or 25 per cent of their weekly benefits, whichever is higher.

About 1.3 million low income Canadians will now have their EI premiums refunded, including almost 700,000 women and about 300,000 youth.

The new EI plan is a pro-employment plan where benefits will be balanced by five active employment initiatives designed to help unemployed Canadians find their place in the labour force. Wage subsidies will give employers an incentive to hire people in targeted groups who face barriers to employment. Many of these beneficiaries will be women and youth.

An innovative new benefit, targeted earning supplements, will top up the income of eligible claimants who take a low earning job.

Self-employment assistance has already helped more than 34,000 Canadians to start their own businesses. This is especially exciting for women who now make up one in every three entrepreneurs. Skills, loans and grants support individual initiative and commitment.

Access to these benefits has been broadened to include more Canadians. Anyone who received insurance benefits in the previous three years and anyone who has claimed maternity, parental or adoptive benefits in the past five years, will now be included.

This new system is both economically and socially responsible. It is proactive and balanced.

It will bridge the difficult transition in a world that is moving out of one industrial era into another, where the status quo no longer works, where a plan designed to meet the needs of a boom generation has become irrelevant.

Change is always difficult at best. How to change in ways that moves us forward competitively into the new world reality is what the EI bill proposes. It reinforces the value of work and our belief as Canadians that we can create prosperity and security in the new millennium. I urge the House to pass this bill and to help Canada accept the challenges and benefits that the 21st century offers.