Keith Martin

[Tobacco Act, March 6th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-71 today. I would like to make a few remarks about the comments of the member for Haldimand-Norfolk, who extolled the benefits of tobacco producers and the positive impact it has made on Canadian society.

I want to go on record by saying that it is an absolutely outrageous distortion of the truth to say the tobacco producers in any way are even remotely considered a benefit to Canadian society. It is an affront to every Canadian who is suffering from tobacco related diseases. Today the Canadian Cancer Society released a study which tragically demonstrates that women have unfortunately bypassed men in terms of lung cancer. It is the number one killer of women. What a tragedy. Those are the benefits the tobacco producers are giving to Canadians.

Madam Speaker, 45,000 people die every year as a result of tobacco related diseases; 250,000 children take up tobacco every single year. Half of them will die prematurely and the morbidity statistics will be greater for them than their non-smoking colleagues.

The cost to the health care system is billions of dollars. The loss in gross national product is billions of dollars. What is the benefit of this?

Today the primary cause of cancer deaths in women is lung cancer. It took women 20 year to catch up, but by heaven, "you have come a long way, baby". Indeed, they have. These are statistics of which no one can be proud and are a tragedy.

In 1994, just after the election, the situation was similar to what it is today except there was tobacco smuggling primarily centred in Quebec and on aboriginal reserves in Quebec. That is a bad thing.

However, not only was tobacco smuggled but also alcohol, people, weapons and drugs. Smuggling conduits were occurring across the board in full view of the police who were told to leave things alone because they were afraid of instigating another Oka situation, a significant consideration.

What did the government of the day do? This Liberal government dropped the tax on tobacco, decreasing the price by up to 50 per cent in some provinces. What has that done? It has increased the number of children who begin smoking every single year by about 50,000 to 100,000.

I want to read from a document published by the Ministry of Health by Drs. Morrison, Mao and Wigle called "The Impact of the Cigarette Price Rollback on the Future Health of Canadian adolescents". I will read a couple of excerpts.

"It is estimated that a 20 per cent reduction in the price of cigarettes in the next five years will result in over 142,000 new

adolescent smokers by the end of 1998. Among these persons, almost 16,900 smoking attributable deaths will occur before the age of 70, well before their normal life span should be finished".

"A 50 per cent price reduction is estimated to result in over 355,000 new adolescent smokers over the next five years which will result in approximately 40,000 smoking attributable deaths before the age of 70". That is what the government has done.

The last paragraph of this document put out by the Ministry of Health says: "Government tobacco control in Canada has had three main components: health promotion campaigns, high tobacco taxes and restrictive policies on public smoking". This is important. "Even the temporary abandonment of high cigarette taxes will likely lead to large numbers of teenagers becoming and/or remaining cigarette smokers. The health consequences of the recent tax decrease will continue for decades".

I cannot think of a single piece of legislation by any government in the history of the country that has had a more negative impact on the health and welfare of Canadians, and certainly on the health and welfare of children. I do not understand how the people on that side, who have children themselves, can in all good conscience support that bill.

Right after that, I brought in a private member's bill which demanded that the government put the tobacco taxes back where they were as of January 1994. What was the government's response? It would not make it votable so that it could become law. It would not give the House the opportunity to make the bill votable, become law and have a chance for a full debate. The government cut it off in committee. What a shame.

In the intervening three years, as a direct result of this policy, hundreds of thousands of children are now picking up cigarette smoking. It did not have to happen. There was a solution to addressing the smuggling situation without compromising the health, welfare and lives of Canadian children.

In 1992, the Conservative government of the day put an export tax on cigarettes. Within six weeks, smuggling went down by 70 per cent. The tobacco companies said to the government: "If you don't remove this export tax, we will get out of Canada". What did the Conservative government do? It buckled under the pressure, removed the export tax and the smuggling went up again. There are solutions. The reason why I focus on this is that cost is the single most important factor in consumption, particularly among children.

The government sold out in 1994 because it knew the tobacco companies would bring a strong lobby and say to the government: "You can't put an export tax on". Instead the government lowered the price and we heard champagne bottles being uncorked in all the tobacco companies. They must think we are fools to do this. They probably could not imagine that any government would compromise the health, welfare and lives of Canadians for political expediency, but that is exactly what happened.

Furthermore the government promised a $60 million investment in education after it lowered the cost because it recognized there would be an increase in consumption. However, it did not even put $6 million into education. The other $54 million somehow disappeared. The government's promise was not kept and people, particularly children, are paying the price to this day.

During the past three years, with obvious evidence of the devastating effects of the government's tobacco tax rollback, the government has done nothing. Now it is bringing in a bill which we are going to support. It is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, in fact it is quite weak. We are going to support it because it is better than nothing.

However, there are solutions to the problem. The government could have enacted solutions that would have addressed the smuggling situation without compromising the health and welfare of Canadians. That is what the government should have done.

First, it should have kept the cost at the January 1994 level and even increased the taxes on tobacco. Second, it should have put an export tax on tobacco in order to eliminate smuggling. Third, it needed to enforce the law.

Nobody talks about the law-abiding aboriginal people on reserves who live in the midst of thugs who engage in smuggling. I do not care whether they are aboriginal or non-aboriginal. These people are breaking the law. If they are breaking the law, the law has to be enforced and they should be dealt with accordingly. One law, one land, one people. However, that is not happening.

The government has put its tail between its legs and has not enforced the law. The law needs to be enforced not only for the sake of principle but also because nobody speaks for the law-abiding aboriginal people on the reserves who live in a culture of fear in the midst of these thugs. It does not suit them very much to have people who traffic in automatic weapons in their midst.

Fourth is education. Unless you have been living in a cave, Madam Speaker, it is impossible not to recognize the harmful, damaging, deleterious effects of tobacco consumption. We have to invest in children. As a physician I know that most people pick up tobacco when they are 11 or 12 years of age, not when they are 20. When they are 11 or 12 they do not know the difference. You can tell them as much as you want that tobacco will cause lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and a number of other problems later on and they simply will not listen because they have a sense of immortality.

If we are going to have an effective education policy we have to address children in terms that are meaningful to them. We have to address their sense of narcissism, which is normal for that age, and their sense of self. Tell them that their skin will look ugly, that their breath will smell, that their hair will smell. These are things they can understand. Tell them that they will age prematurely. These are the things they should be telling children, not that their lungs will look black when they are 55 years of age. That would be a far more effective way to address the educational situation with children.

The primary reason women and young girls start smoking is to be thin, to be skinny. This gets into a whole different issue which we can address at another time. The secondary reason is to be cool, which is a very difficult issue to address. If we attack their sense of narcissism, we will be much more effective in our educational policies than we would be if we talked about the long term effects of smoking to one's health.

Fifth, the government needs to stop subsidizing tobacco producers. Sixth, stop promotion and seventh, introduce crop substitution policies for the farmers. Contrary to the claims of the member for Haldimand-Norfolk, these policies do work.

I would like to address again the aggressive lobby which is being put on by the Bloc Quebecois on the sponsorship issue. Would these cultural and athletic events really disappear from the Canadian scene? Where would they go? To England? To France? To the United States? Of course not. All of those countries either have or are going to ban tobacco sponsorship of cultural and athletic events. They are not going anywhere. This is just another move by the tobacco companies to try to prevent having any restrictions placed on them and they will go to any length to do that.

This week during this debate the Bloc Quebecois sponsored an event in the Hall of Honour of the House of Commons, which was a front for the tobacco companies, where free drinks and food were served. It was a cheap, shameless effort to try to seduce members of the House to vote against Bill C-71. I cannot think of one reason why the people of Quebec should be proud of the members they elected to the House who would compromise the health and welfare of their children. The province of Quebec has the highest number of kids who smoke. They are compromising those children under the guise of tobacco sponsorship.

The tobacco companies claim that it is an issue of free speech. They hide their true agenda under spurious arguments.

In the United States they increased the content of carcinogens and addictive materials in tobacco.

If they say that advertising has no effect on children, why are they currently engaged in such a fight? Why do they invest millions of dollars into sponsorships? Out of the goodness of their hearts? I do not think so. Why are they currently engaged in the most aggressive advertising campaign in China that the world has ever seen? They are doing it because they recognize there are millions of potential smokers they can capitalize on. China is only beginning to realize the cost.

The tobacco companies have one agenda, to ensure that the greatest number of people in this or any other country smoke. They do not give a damn whether there will be any adverse effects. They are purveyors of a carcinogenic, toxic material which, if brought to this country today, would never be legalized.

A libertarian would say that people have the right to do what they want. People should have the right to consume whatever they want, whenever they want. However, libertarian views do not apply to 11 year olds. That is why we are trying to put forth good, tough legislation that will address the tobacco epidemic we have in Canada today.

I urge the government to do the following. First, be courageous and restore the tobacco taxes to the January 1995 level. Second, put an export tax on tobacco. That will cut the legs out from underneath the smugglers. Third, enforce the law so that those people who are smuggling are brought to justice. Fourth, introduce appropriate and effective educational policies within our schools, not only for tobacco but also for alcohol, pot, cocaine, heroin, et cetera. The dangers of all those substances need to be told through our education system.

This is an opportunity for the government to take a leadership role on this important issue. It can do something constructive for the health and welfare of all Canadians and, most important, for the health and welfare of our children.

[Tobacco Act, March 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today on the motions in GroupNo. 2 that were put forward by my colleague from Macleod. We are faced with a difficult dilemma.

The dilemma in this bill is how we address decreasing consumption, particularly among youth and dealing with the purchase of cigarettes in shops. Is it fair to criminalize those individuals who unknowingly sell cigarettes to minors or is it fairer to put the responsibility on the individual who goes into the store with the knowledge they are committing an illegal act? My colleague from Macleod and I feel it is more important to put the responsibility and the onus on the child who buys cigarettes and who knows full well he is committing an illegal act.

That is why the motions in Group No. 2 were put forward by my colleague, putting a $75 dollar summary conviction fine on underage children who buy cigarettes.

We have heard a lot today on the issue of sponsorship. The ultimate goal of this bill should be to decrease tobacco consumption with all Canadians, particularly youth. We know we can have the greatest effect in decreasing consumption in youth. Tobacco consumption and the addiction to tobacco products occurs when somebody is a child, particularly around the ages of 11 to 14. The consumption of as little as one pack of cigarettes or sometimes even less can ensure that a child is addicted for life.

Over the term of this government, the statistics have been very interesting in a number of areas. One area is the decrease in cost this government effected when it decreased tobacco taxes in February 1994, a move we vehemently opposed. We opposed this because decreasing the tobacco tax was the single most important negative health move that any government in the past 50 years has made.

The negative effect of this move cannot be underestimated. Lowering the cost of cigarettes has introduced 250,000 children to cigarettes each year. They will be addicted for life. Half of them will ultimately die an early death. A great percentage will suffer morbidity from a wide variety of diseases, from chronic obstructive lung disease to angina to a number of other malignancies, which there is not enough time to speak of today.

This is the fate that awaits those children in the future and that is the legacy this government has given to the Canadian people. This is what it has done for their health.

This government was warned by Health Canada. A Health Canada study was conducted by Drs. Morrison, Mao, Wigle and Villeneuve entitled "The Impact of Cigarette Price Rollback on the Future Health of Canadian Adolescents". I will quote from the summary:

Government tobacco control in Canada has had three main components: health promotion campaigns, high tobacco taxes and restrictive policies on public smoking. Even the temporary abandonment of high cigarette taxes will likely lead to a large number of teenagers becoming and/or remaining smokers. The health consequences of the recent tax decrease will continue for decades.

That study, which was given to the minister in 1995, illustrated very clearly, succinctly and scientifically that the impact of a tobacco tax rollback would be utterly devastating to the health and welfare of Canadians, but in particular to the health and welfare of Canadian children. The government has also been inactive in the area of advertising.

The Supreme Court in its wisdom, and I use that very sarcastically because I cannot think of a greater affront to Canadians and a greater lack of responsibility than the Supreme Court has demonstrated through twisting the charter of rights and freedoms, turned down the advertising ban on smoking advertising. What has been the effect of that? Let us take a look.

The data of the last year show in 1996 alone that the lack of a ban on tobacco advertising has been enough to support 250,000 new smokers in this country. The per capita increase has been anywhere from 3 to 4 per cent in this country as a result of not allowing the ban on tobacco advertising itself.

To colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois, I ask them to take a look at this very clearly and it will demonstrate without a shadow of a doubt that the ban on advertising that has been removed has caused an increase in consumption. They should be more concerned than anybody else because the children in Quebec take up smoking earlier and smoke more than children in any other province in this country. Those are the facts.

We have to do something in this House. We have to deal with the epidemic of smoking. The tobacco sponsorship provisions in the bill are okay. We are holding our noses and supporting the bill only because nothing has been done on the tobacco issue in this country for three years. For three years while a quarter of a million kids pick up the habit the government has been diddling around doing nothing.

The health minister would rather deal with banning certain types of soft cheeses than with a health epidemic that claims 40,000 lives every year. What does that say about the commitment of this government to the health of Canadians? If I were them I would be truly embarrassed.

Certainly back in 1994 we had a smuggling epidemic but here is another problem that the government failed to deal with properly. Instead of dealing with the smuggling issue which actually occurs unfortunately on many aboriginal reserves in Quebec, instead of dealing with the smuggling conduits which deal not only with tobacco but also deal with guns, with alcohol, with drugs and with tobacco and people, the government has chosen to put its head in the sand and not address the criminals and the thugs who are

engaging in this and who are associated closely with the gangs in the United States.

Instead of dealing with the thugs, the government has chosen to compromise the health and welfare of all Canadians and in particular the children of this country by rolling back the tobacco taxes. The government has put its tail between its legs and said "we are not going to enforce the law, we are going to compromise the health of Canadians and make it look like we are doing something".

A plan for the health of Canadians and a plan to decrease consumption and a plan to address the smuggling was there and it is as follows. One, bring the tobacco taxes back where they were in January 1994. Two, put forth an export tax which would decrease the smuggling of tobacco. Three, enforce the law to address and arrest those individuals who are committing crimes and who are smuggling all across this country.

The government fails to recognize the law-abiding aboriginal people who live on these reserves who have to put up with thugs in their midst who are engaging in these illicit, illegal practices. No one talks about the culture of fear that many of those people live in. It is an abrogation of the responsibility of this government to not address that problem. It is an abrogation of the responsibility of this government to put its own political fortunes ahead of the health of Canadians.

The government should be ashamed of itself and the Canadian people should understand what is going on here. The plan was there but the government chose to ignore it.

I hope that our colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois will unite with our colleagues in the Reform Party and I hope some members of the Liberal Party to put forth a better solution to address the smuggling issue, decrease consumption of cigarette smoking in this country and enable us to all live in a healthier and happier environment, if not for ourselves then in particular for the health and welfare of our children.

[Health Care, March 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we have been accused of being a slash and burn party. We want to put $4 billion into the health care of Canadians.

How can the Minister of Health tell the provinces what stable funding is? Is stable funding the removal of $7 billion in transfer payments to health and education? That is slash and burn health care in Canada.

[Health Care, March 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, a few short weeks ago in a hospital at which I used to work, a 60 year-old gentleman was having heart pain and, indeed, a heart attack. He had to be transferred to St. Paul's Hospital. He waited three days because there was not enough money to open the intensive care unit beds in that hospital. This man died.

My question is for the Minister of Health. Is that his version of the government allowing the provinces to absorb $7 billion in transfer payment cuts to health care? Does he want the patients to absorb that with their lives?

[Tobacco Act, March 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak on the bill. I would like to raise a few important notices.

Three years ago the government had an ideal opportunity to do something about the horrendous smoking situation. We were faced with the terrible situation of smuggling occurring primarily in Quebec.

The government, however, chose to take a path that compromised the lives of Canadian children at the expense of political gain and of political courage. It chose to lower the taxation and cost of cigarettes in an effort to address the smuggling issue.

In terms of decreasing the smuggling of tobacco, that issue was addressed because it decreased. However the cost was the increase in consumption and the increase in the number of young people smoking by the amount of a quarter of million every single year.

Over the last three years the government by lowering the price of cigarettes introduced a quarter of a million new children to cigarette smoking every single year, or 750,000 children over the last three years, half of whom will die prematurely and virtually all of whom will suffer diseases, mortality and morbidity at a rate much higher than Canadians who do not smoke.

The smuggling issue is an interesting one. Smuggling not only involves tobacco. It also involves guns, drugs, people, alcohol and cigarettes. The amount of cigarettes smuggled was all that was decreased. The conduits of smuggling existed as they do today. The solution we proposed three years ago would have effectively decreased the consumption of cigarettes and would have addressed the smuggling issue.

Our proposal was to bring the export tax to where it was in 1992. The Conservative government of the day brought in an export tax of $8 per carton. In six weeks smuggling of cigarettes plummeted almost 70 per cent. The tobacco companies, fearful of a decrease in their profits, said if the government of the day did not remove that export tax they would leave the country.

What happened? The Conservative government of the day buckled under pressure of the tobacco companies, removed the export tax, and consumption went right back up. The smuggling issue was not addressed. If we put on a tobacco export tax smuggling will go down.

Also the law should be enforced. No one speaks about the people who live in these areas, many of whom are on aboriginal reserves on the Quebec-U.S. border. No one speaks about law-abiding innocent individuals living on these reserves who have to put up with thugs engaged in the movement and trafficking of illicit cigarettes as well as alcohol, weapons and drugs. Much of this is tied into criminal gangs in the United States. It is not run by law-abiding people. It is run by thugs and crooks.

The single most important thing we could do is decrease consumption. I do not care about the issues of sponsorship or education. Education is important but unless people have been living in a cave for the last 30 years they know smoking is bad for their health. Smoking is addictive and smoking kills. It is not a problem of education. Cost is the single most important determining factor in consumption, particularly in children. There is ample scientific evidence showing that the supply and demand curve for consumption is very elastic in price.

To decrease consumption tobacco taxes should be what they were before January 1994. In that way consumption will decrease. Revenues to the government will increase and health care costs will go down. It is unlike any other tax. We are a party firmly in favour of decreasing taxation.

Tobacco presents a different situation. If tobacco taxes can be what they were as of January 1994, consumption will go down. Costs to the taxpayer will go down in terms of health care costs. By lowering the taxation rate government revenues have gone down and the costs to the taxpayer have escalated dramatically in terms of health care.

With respect to the sponsorship issue the members of the Bloc Quebecois like to trumpet, let us call a spade a spade. I do not think anyone in the House has been deluded into thinking for one moment that tobacco companies are sponsoring the Grand Prix and

the Players International Tennis Championship out of the goodness of their hearts.

The tobacco companies sponsor events like the Montreal Jazz Festival, the Players International Tennis Championship and the Grand Prix so that children will take up cigarette smoking. The only reason any company invests in advertising is so that people will buy their product. The product in this case is a cancer causing, debilitating, addictive substance called tobacco.

There is ample evidence to show in countries such as New Zealand, Great Britain and France tobacco sponsorship has been banned from sports and arts and cultural festivals. The festivals did not decline or go away. Rather they thrived because they found sponsors in other areas.

There is no reason to believe that cultural and sporting events would leave Canada. Where would they go? Would they go to the United States? I think not. The United States is in the process of banning tobacco advertising in sponsorship and cultural events. Will they move to Europe? Of course not because it is banned in most countries there. Where will they go?

It is a false promise trumpeted by the tobacco companies that cultural and sporting events will leave Canada because tobacco companies are not allowed to sponsor them. They will not leave Canada.

The government can propose some alternative solutions to ensure cultural events survive quite nicely, perhaps by using some interim funding from tobacco taxes. By increasing the taxes we would decrease consumption, particularly among children.

Education about tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana and other drugs including solvents is very important. Money from tobacco taxes could be applied to early childhood education to educate children in Kindergarten that smoking, drinking, solvents, cocaine, pot and heroin are all very bad and can ruin their lives.

If the government proposed that along with its provincial counterparts a co-operative and productive situation would result. There would be a decrease in consumption of tobacco without compromising the lives of Canadians and without compromising our sports and cultural events. We are sensitive to that and believe the proposals put forward in the past will ensure cultural events continue and the consumption of tobacco decreases.

In closing, three years ago the government had an opportunity to address the smoking epidemic in our midst. Instead of making the situation better it made it worse by making cigarettes more affordable for the children of our great nation. It is a terrible legacy to leave Canadians. It is the single worst piece of legislation affecting the health of Canadians I can remember in the last 35 to 40 years. I cannot think of a piece of legislation that has been more damaging to the health and welfare of Canadians than what the government did back in February 1994.

Amendments can be made today in the House. However the government needs to have the courage to stand up to the smoking lobbyists and tobacco companies and say "We are not going to take it anymore. We are going to address this health epidemic. We are going to do it for the betterment of all Canadians".

The proposals are out there. We and other Canadians have proposed them. Now take it and use it.

[Health Care, February 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this is health care platform progress note number two on the state of our health care.

In my hometown of Victoria 160 people are on waiting lists for radiation therapy. Of those people, 60 per cent are there for breast cancer, 40 per cent are there for prostate cancer. The wait with respect to breast cancer can be as long as 14 weeks. The response of the provincial government has been to close down the expansion of the cancer clinic. As well it is sending people to the United States.

In British Columbia waiting lists for cardiac surgery went from 385 in March to 500 in December.

This government has just put $300 million into health care after ripping out and eviscerating $7 billion in transfer payments to the provinces.

It is this political party that continues to label itself the white knight that pretends to be there for the sick, the poor and the dispossessed, but the only white knight-

[Petitions, February 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this petition calls upon Parliament to conduct a full inquiry into the relationship between lending institutions and the judiciary, and to enact legislation restricting the appointment of judges with ties to credit granting institutions.

[Petitions, February 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have another petition where the petitioners ask Parliament to take steps in keeping BGH out of Canada and to legislate a moratorium or stoppage on the use and sale of BGH until the year 2000, and to examine the outstanding health and economic questions through an independent and transparent review body.

[Petitions, February 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have another petition where the petitioners request that Parliament not increase the federal excise tax on gasoline in the budget.

[Petitions, February 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions in which the petitioners call upon Parliament to urge the federal government to join with the provincial governments to upgrade the national highway system in 1997.