Jay Hill

[Criminal Code, September 22nd, 1994]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-272, an act to amend the Criminal Code (gun control).

Mr. Speaker, today it is my pleasure to introduce a private member's bill to amend some of the more contentious clauses in the Criminal Code pertaining to gun control.

This bill decriminalizes offences against regulations respecting storage, display, handling and transportation of firearms. It simplifies the FAC renewal process and allows previous law-abiding gun owners to acquire an FAC without going through the course and test.

It allows gun owners to bequeath grandfathered restricted guns. It clarifies the legal obligation of this government to provide compensation for confiscated firearms. It makes all future and existing regulations subject to review by the House of Commons.

Canadians are demanding crime control, not gun control. It is time for the government to get tough on criminals, not create more red tape for legitimate gun owners.

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

[Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement Act, September 21st, 1994]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-271, an act to amend the Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement Act (Interpretation).

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to introduce an act to amend the Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement Act.

One of the more serious flaws in Bill C-33 allows the agreements of the Yukon First Nations to take precedence over Canadian laws. The bill would amend Bill C-33, the Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement Act, so that federal or territorial law will prevail where there is an inconsistency or conflict with any final agreement or transboundary agreement.

We are all Canadians and the laws of the land should apply equally to all.

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

[Excise Tax Act, June 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I agree the emphasis has to be placed on trying to educate the young people. With my three young children at home I certainly have endeavoured to do that. I have tried to tell them to do as I say and not as I do, obviously.

Although I have smoked on and off for 25 years, I did quit for four and a half years at one point, quite an accomplishment I felt at the time. However, along came the 1988 election and by the time I had gone through the election I was smoking again. It might say something for the profession I am currently in.

As to what we can do to encourage young people, I think it is incumbent on every one who has children or young people around them-if you are a coach of a team, if you have young nieces, nephews, grandchildren, whatever-to certainly encourage them not to smoke and to warn them about the dangers of smoking. That is something each and every one of us can do.

I do not believe, as someone else said earlier, that plain packaging or government advertising programs which spend millions of dollars will be that effective. I have talked to a number of young people. When they see these frightening ads on television that try to portray the danger of cigarettes, they do not relate to them. Peer pressure is much greater and it will not be offset by that advertising.

Personal contact from people they know and trust, their family and friends, would be much more successful in preventing them from starting to smoke or convincing them to stop if they do start.

[Excise Tax Act, June 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, speaking as an experienced smoker, I can tell my hon. colleague that Canadian cigarettes are the best cigarettes in the world. I have travelled in Europe and I have travelled quite extensively in the United States. I must say their cigarettes and tobacco simply do not stack up. I am quite prepared to state that yes, Canadian smokers would be prepared to pay more for Canadian tobacco. That is a great indication of what a terrific job Canadian farmers do in growing quality products.

[Excise Tax Act, June 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank my hon. colleague for his comments and his question.

As he so ably put it, the government was faced with a horrendous problem, the smuggling problem in Canada. As I said in my column, 70 per cent of it had been identified as coming through the native reserves in central Canada. What I advocated then and what I still advocate is we have to get tough with law breakers no matter who they are and no matter where they are in our country.

I felt then as I do now that a dual approach is needed of raising the export tax enough to take away the incentive as well as clamping down on smugglers wherever they may be, even if it were to cause bloodshed. If we have laws on our books but are not prepared to enforce them, then what good are they?

This government developed a national strategy with this legislation to address primarily a central Canada problem. Certainly we did not see the same problem in western Canada. If it had been there those governments would have reduced their cigarette taxes as well and they have not, except by a minimal amount.

We have to get tough with the smugglers instead of sending them a clear message that we will compete with them for their own customers by lowering the costs. If we follow this train of thought through where does it lead? Other things are smuggled into the country. Are we going to address them in the same manner? That is ridiculous.

[Excise Tax Act, June 21st, 1994]

Or pass the butt.

The third point I want to come back to is that price is a deterrent. I can attest to that, as I said earlier. Any young person who smokes today would also be witness to that fact. There is a big difference at $2 or $3 a pack than if it is $7 or $8 a pack of cigarettes in how much they will smoke or whether they will even continue smoking.

I am very pleased to be able to rise today and voice my opposition to Bill C-32, not because, as other speakers have said that it does not have some good built into it but that strictly on health reasons alone I feel that in all good conscience, if we care about future generations, if we care about the young in Canada, we should vote against this bill.

[Excise Tax Act, June 21st, 1994]

That is right, pass the buck.

[Excise Tax Act, June 21st, 1994]

Shame. That is right.

When it comes to quitting smoking, I am a professional quitter. I have quit hundreds of times. However, I can attest to just how powerful a hold cigarettes have on an individual.

Make no mistake, nicotine is a highly addictive drug. We have all heard that it is perhaps even more addictive than the drug heroin. I started smoking when I was 16 years old and as one of my colleagues remarked earlier, being raised on a farm I started smoking out behind the barn at a very early age. Why the barn did not burn down I have no idea.

At that time cigarettes were 35 cents a pack. I can remember very clearly when they were raised to 50 cents, then 75 cents, finally climbing to $1. Of course with each price increase a few more people would quit smoking. That is the reality of it.

I can remember my father for one stating that when cigarettes got to be $1 a pack that was it, he was going to quit smoking. It certainly was a deterrent for young people and although that was many years ago I was a young person at that time. It was hard to come up with 35 cents some days.

Last night on my way home I stopped at a corner store to purchase a package of cigarettes. Three dollars and thirty cents is how much it costs to buy them by the pack. I heard an hon. member earlier state that they are down around $2 a pack if you buy them by the carton.

The very thing we spoke out about in February when the government announced this legislation and their intentions are actually coming about, the lower cost of cigarettes in central Canada. With the resultant lower cost we are starting to see an increase in consumption, especially among young people who would not be able to afford cigarettes in many cases at $7 a pack or thereabouts where it was a while back.

I ask the government, what message does this send to teenagers. That it is this frivolous with their health? The government cares this little about the health of teenagers that it lowers the cost of cigarettes like this. Tobacco is a drug addiction. I would equate it to alcohol. Once you become an alcoholic everyone

recognizes that you are an alcoholic for life. It does not matter if you have not had a drink for 20 years, you are still an alcoholic. Past alcoholics who are successful are people who recognize that fact and never take that first drink. I can certainly attest to the fact it is very similar once you take that first cigarette. It does not take long for nicotine to take hold of your life again.

Probably since the lowering of the tax and consequently the cost of cigarettes, in the neighbourhood of hundreds or perhaps even thousands of young people have begun to smoke. Certainly a lot of young people who perhaps would seriously have considered giving up the cigarettes are continuing to smoke.

As I outlined in my column, the international smuggling problem has become an interprovincial one. Westerners, the people I represent, feel very disenfranchised by this. They feel they are second class citizens when they know what the price of cigarettes is in central Canada and it is still over $6 a pack back home.

Polls are indicating, as some of our hon. members have indicated, that the use of cigarettes is going up for the first time in recent history. Common sense would seem to dictate that hon. members opposite should vote against this, but common sense seems to be sadly lacking on the other side of the House on this issue.

In conclusion, I would like to sum up by making three points. My colleagues have addressed the majority of their concerns with this legislation.

Nicotine is a powerful drug. It is well if we all remember that, especially when it gets a hold on our youth, when the youth take to smoking.

There is ample evidence to note that smoking is dangerous to a person's health. I know that used to be disputed for many years. Certainly when I first started smoking it was not as well known as it is now just what are the inherent dangers of cigarette consumption. We are just beginning to learn about the real danger of second hand smoke to our children, to our spouses, to people around us in the workplace.

I find it somewhat ironic that the government would initiate lowering the cost of cigarettes at the same time as municipalities across the country are having smoke free zones, smoke free buildings. Yet the government through this lowering of the cost of tobacco is actually encouraging people to either begin to smoke or to continue smoking.

We note that the government has no real handle on what the cost to future taxpayers is going to be in health care. It is very relevant to remember that it is future taxpayers who are going to pay this. Just like the deficit and the debt, we are passing on this cost to our children.

[Excise Tax Act, June 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on February 8 this government announced its national action campaign to combat smuggling. Bill C-11 was introduced to address some of the enforcement measures and tax changes were implemented using a number of ways and means motions until Bill C-32 was introduced on May 27. As has already been outlined, there are a number of positives mixed up in the bill with the obvious negative of lowering cigarette taxes and thereby lowering the price of cigarettes to smokers.

On February 10, I wrote a column on this very issue for newspapers back home. It was printed in all the local papers. I think it is of interest and I would like to quote from my column and read it into the record:

The Prime Minister says there is a breakdown in respect for the law in Canada and this will no longer be tolerated. His House leader states that smuggling is a crime and we must restore law and order. Brave words, hopefully to be followed by strong action undertaken with a resolute strength of will.

The government unveiled its national action plan to combat smuggling, the objective being to eliminate cigarette smuggling in Canada. Like most government plans, it is a mixture of good and bad. Its plan to step up enforcement by police forces and customs officers is certainly commendable as is the implementation of an $8 per carton export tax.

Stepping up the anti-smoking education campaign is also a positive move. However the government's announced reduction in taxes on legal cigarettes sold in Canada must surely be a disastrous error. Make no mistake, the federal government struck this deal primarily for the benefit of one province.

Quebec has been clamouring for action on this for weeks. Almost immediately after the Prime Minister's announcement, Quebec indicated its willingness to participate fully in the tax reduction scheme. As a result, the price of a carton of cigarettes in Quebec will fall from $47 to less than $23 when federal and provincial taxes are removed, along with relevant GST and sales taxes. What is the fallout from this?

Criminals have been sent the message that we cannot protect our borders or enforce our laws, particularly on the Akwasasne Indian reserve through which an estimated 70 per cent of contraband tobacco is funnelled. We will instead lower the price of legal cigarettes and compete for their customers.

Provinces other than Quebec will be forced to match the tax reductions. If not, an international smuggling problem will simply become an interprovincial one. Every province will face a resultant drop in tax revenue at the very time they are all struggling to balance income with expenditures.

Price is a deterrent. Cheaper cigarettes will act as an incentive for Canadians to start or to continue smoking, especially our youth. The end result will undoubtedly be higher health costs for all Canadians in the future.

For years, our policy has been to attempt to offset the costs attributable to smoking by levying higher tobacco taxes. Now suddenly with one stroke of the pen, this government has reversed that policy. This new policy of reducing domestic taxes in lieu of initiating a higher export tax will primarily benefit the tobacco industry by maintaining or increasing current cigarette consumption levels.

If past performance is any indication this government, just like its predecessor, will lack the political will to follow though with its announced crackdown on smugglers. In my opinion what is needed is a comprehensive plan which would include strict enforcement of our laws. If the present police and customs forces are inadequate as the past record of seizure of only an estimated 1 per cent of illegal cigarettes would seem to indicate, then those forces should be augmented.

If necessary, our armed forces should be called upon to assist with this mission. Perhaps a little trip down the St. Lawrence might make a good shakedown cruise for our new frigates. It is time for politicians to make some tough decisions and give the police a mandate to enforce our laws.

That was my column on February 10. What has changed since February 10? I note not a lot.

I would like to change the focus of the debate a little at this point and talk about cigarettes from a personal perspective. I have been a smoker for approximately 25 years.

[Excise Tax Act, June 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, once again I listened to my colleague's comments with great interest. I noted that she is advocating the re-examination of this legislation in order to take another fresh look at just where the country is going with this reduction in cigarette taxation.

Could she give us some indication of what she would come up with for a better enforcement strategy. If we are not going to have the reduction in the cigarette taxes and the reduction in the cost of cigarettes in order to combat the cigarette smuggling, what other avenue is open and what would she advocate? Would it be in the form of a higher export tax? Would it be in more money spent on law enforcement? Would it be more patrols of our borders? Would it be those types of things? I just wonder what she would advocate.