Keith Martin

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

Mr. Speaker, the question is do we want to look good or do we want to do good?

Bill C-24 is a welcome addition. However, do we beat around the bush on this issue or do we cut to the chase and get to what really counts? When we are weighing legislative initiatives, there is no proof plain packaging works. Do we deal with legislative initiatives which will have little or no effect or should we be dealing with something which will have a profound effect?

The number one, most important factor in tobacco consumption, which is what we are addressing, is cost. The cost factor is most important for youth, less important for adults, but nonetheless important in both areas.

The elasticity of price and demand is so important that it overshadows virtually every other initiative the government can take.

To answer the hon. member, we certainly support Bill C-24 but for heaven's sake, deal with the big issues. Bring back the tobacco taxes to what they were before and raise the cost of cigarettes to where it was two years ago and then we will truly have a profound effect on consumption in Canada, which is what all members what to see.

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

Mr. Speaker, this debate would be funny if it was not so tragic. I cannot believe the comments that have been made by members across the way which, to my mind, are absolute, sheer hypocrisy.

They are irreconcilable. On one hand, they say that they believe that smoking is bad for people, that it is going to kill people and that they are committed to preventing, as the Minister of Health of the day said, even one youth from smoking. On the other hand they

bring in legislation that is the most important factor in promoting smoking among youth. They are irreconcilable.

I understand what was going on at the time of the tobacco rollback. I understand that smuggling was a problem, but that was not the solution. I will get back to that later.

Reform members support Bill C-24 because it does something toward promoting education concerning this lethal product. This is very little compared to the larger picture. When we go to sleep tonight, 123 people will have died in this country. Over the course of the year, some 40,000 Canadians will die of cigarette related illnesses. It is the single most important preventable cause of death and illness in this country today.

The legislation put forward by the government over the last two years has done nothing but increase that. The small measures that it has taken really beats around the bushes, around the outside.

The profound effects that it has had have committed some 40,000 to 60,000 youth to date to smoking. Half of them will die at least 10 to 15 years earlier than what they should have died. If there is one shameful legacy that the government has, this has to be it. I am embarrassed to say that I was part of the Parliament while this took place.

We welcome again Bill C-24, particularly in view of the overturning by the Supreme Court of the ban on tobacco advertising, an unbelievably myopic and absurd decision by the highest court in the country. It is unbelievable to me how justices could consciously do that, understanding full well the impact on the health of Canadians and as my colleague mentioned, particularly on the health of youth.

The other action, the tobacco tax rollback I mentioned, was done because of the smuggling that was taking place. There is no doubt that we had to do something to address that problem.

Reform members presented to the government an alternative solution that would not have entailed a decrease in cost. Members know that cost is the single most important determining factor in cigarette smoking, particularly among youth. Our proposal was to put an export tax on cigarettes. Why do we know this works? It is because in 1992 the Conservative government of the day had a similar problem with smuggling and it put on an export tax of $8 a carton.

Within six weeks, the amount of smuggling went down dramatically, in the order of 60 per cent. What did the Conservative government of the day do? It removed the export tax. Why did it do that? The tobacco companies threatened to leave the country. The tax was working but the government failed. That is why there was a rollback in the taxes. That is why today cartons of cigarettes cost 50 per cent less than they did when we were elected two years ago. At that time cartons of cigarettes in Ontario cost $50, today they cost $25. What do people do? They smoke more. We do not need a tobacco reduction strategy to tell us that. We just need to walk into a store to see that or speak to the youth on the street.

Our alternative was to remove the tobacco tax rollback, bring the cost of cigarettes back to where they were, put the $8 export tax on cartons and enforce the law. At the time the smuggling was taking place, the police officers in the area were told to turn a blind eye. The government did not want to confront the smugglers, particularly because a lot of the smuggling was taking place on aboriginal land in the Kahnawake and Kanesatake reserves. It did not want to start up another Oka.

We have one law in this country and that law must be applied equally to all of the people who live inside Canada. It was not done deliberately.

The government should bring the export tax back, bring the costs back to where they were for tobacco, and enforce the law. We would not have a smuggling problem and the increase in consumption that we have today. In fact we would see a decrease in consumption.

The cost of the tobacco rollback has not been minor. The costs will be an increase in deaths, in morbidity and a decrease in gross domestic product, because people fall sick after smoking. These are hidden costs that the government is not taking into consideration and it is not informing the Canadian public.

The costs in my province of British Columbia are in the order of hundreds of millions of dollars in losses in gross domestic product. The cost in health care across the country is estimated to be in the tens of billions of dollars.

That is what the government has done to save face with the tobacco companies. That is really what all this is about. It is trying to do something without disturbing the tobacco companies, the purveyors of these products of death, mayhem, sadness, sickness and untold human suffering.

I challenge the members across the way who voted for that. I know many of them know people in their own families who have died of smoking related illnesses. I ask them to put themselves again in that mindset and think what would happen if their children too were going to suffer from those same terrible diseases.

The increasing consumption, particularly among the young, has been enormous. Just in the last couple of years it has gone from 21 per cent up to 30 per cent. It is going to continue to rise.

I put forward a private member's motion shortly after the tobacco tax rollback took place. The motion dealt with the rollback. Did the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs make this a votable motion? No, it did not. It did not want the

overnment to be embarrassed over this issue. Sadly, my private member's motion asking for the tobacco tax to be put back on died on the Order Paper. I challenge the government once again to bring back those taxes.

Second, members across the way have proudly talked about the tobacco demand reduction strategy. What did this government do? It cut the funding for it. I would like to know from government members what has happened to the tobacco demand reduction strategy.

When people are trying to educate youth about tobacco, do they not tell them that they were going to die of lung cancer or that they were going to suffer from emphysema or chronic constructive lung disease? We have to argue on the basis of narcissism, believe it not, and tell them that their breath is going to smell foul, that it is lousy for their dating and their personal lives, that their skin is going to become sallow and that physically they are not going to look as good as they did before. Then we will have an effect on them. To tell them about all the terrible diseases they will get simply will not work because they have a sense, as we know, of immortality at that age.

As I mentioned, the supreme court decision shot down the ban on advertising on tobacco. That happened eight months ago. The government has had eight months to do something about it but has done absolutely nothing, although it promised it would. If that is how long it takes, the minister and the ministry of health should be ashamed of themselves.

It is absurd when we think about what this ban means. It means we can advertise for Rothmans, we can advertise for Craven As, we can advertise for Camels, but we are forbidden to advertise for the Nicoderm patches used to prevent people from smoking. That is the absurd situation we have today.

I have some solutions. Put tobacco in the Food and Drugs Act. This would give the government regulatory authority over tobacco. It would enable it to put standards on product quality, composition, packaging, sale and advertising. It would empower it to do what it has failed to do over the last three years. It is particularly important because a few years ago tobacco companies were found to be spiking cigarettes with nicotine in order to increase their addictive potential. This would prevent that in Canada. It would not require a legislative change either.

Put back the export tax. Enforce the laws against smuggling. Bring back the legislative ban on cigarette advertising. Increase education for children.

We need to get back to basics. We have a health care crisis in Canada today, the increase in consumption of cigarettes particularly among youth. The Liberal government and the previous Conservative government caved in to pressure from the cigarette companies.

Solutions exist to balance out the needs of the government to stop smuggling, which has to be done, while enabling us to preserve the health and welfare of Canadians and prevent the sickness, the tragedy, the mortality and the morbidity that will affect Canadians.

I ask every member in the House who has children to look at their children carefully when they go home tonight and ask themselves if they want to compromise their children's lives. Do they want to compromise their children and their friends' lives by allowing the embarrassing situation we have today with the tobacco tax rollback?

If the government is truly committed to preventing cigarette consumption, the single most important thing it can do is increase the cost of cigarettes to Canadians. By doing this it will decrease consumption and improve the health and welfare of all Canadians. It will be the single most important legacy for the health and welfare of Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I compliment the hon. member for her fine speech. Factually she is certainly correct. Being a physician, she understands very clearly, personally and scientifically the impact of smoking.

However, I find it absolutely absurd that the government, after 15 years of seeing a decrease in consumption in the country, has entertained legislative proposals that have destroyed the last 15 years of our fight against smoking.

The tobacco tax rollback was the single most important negative piece of legislation that has ever been done in the last 50 years against the health and welfare of Canadians.

The hon. member, a physician, was there as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health at that time. I ask her how she can reconcile her obvious passionate knowledge that smoking is disastrous for people's health with the fact she supported the tobacco tax rollback.

[Taro Dump, June 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the proposed Taro dump on the Niagara escarpment is to harbour some 11 million tonnes of hazardous waste. There are serious health concerns regarding the dump. I would like to know if the Minister of the Environment will do a full environmental assessment of the proposed dump site.

[Petitions, May 31st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from Canada Indivisible and involves 101 Canadians from across the country who say to Parliament that Canada is indivisible and that the boundaries of Canada, its provinces, territories and waters be modified only by a free vote of all Canadians through the amending formula stipulated in the Canadian Constitution.

[Petitions, May 31st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions, one from my riding of Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, calling on Parliament to enact Bill C-205, introduced by the hon. member for Scarborough West, at the earliest opportunity to provide in Canadian law that no criminal profit from a committing a crime. That is signed by 36 people from my riding.

[National Unity, May 31st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. It has become evident the Prime Minister and his government have absolutely no plan to deal with the national unity issue, no plan A or plan B. In the next referendum the government will be caught again with its pants down around its ankles.

Here is a plan for the Prime Minister. I have put forth a private member's motion that outlines the five criteria under international law required for an area to secede: one, a clear question; two, passed by two-thirds majority; three, the secessionist unit is a people meeting international standards; four, these people have to show their rights and freedoms have been discriminated against; five, they must demonstrate they can form a government.

The Prime Minister must also dispel the myths between federalists and separatists. He must bring members of Parliament from across the House together to build bridges of tolerance and

understanding. If he does not do this, the country will fracture, compromising the health and welfare of all Canadians.

[Dangerous Offenders, May 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on the motion put forth by my colleague from Surrey-White Rock-South Langley. It amends the Criminal Code to deal with those who are convicted of sexual offences, sexual assault, sexual assaults involving a child, and aggravated sexual assault. The motion calls for ensuring that the convicted individual be examined by two psychiatrists to determine whether they should have the designation of dangerous offender.

Why bring this motion forth in the first place? The reason is that the justice system has been unable or unwilling at times to protect innocent civilians against such individuals who pose a threat to society.

The designation is used but perhaps not often enough. The reason is that a bias exists within our justice system. The bias is in favour of the convicted criminal and not in favour of the innocent civilian. This started in the 1980s when the Liberal solicitor general of the day stated that from now on the justice department would focus on the rehabilitation of criminals instead of the protection of society. In our view that is not what the justice department is all about and my colleague's motion is aimed at reversing that in part.

We do not believe that locking up criminals is the answer. We do not believe that throwing away the key is the answer. Prevention certainly is. However there are individuals who have proven by their actions to be fundamentally violent sexual abusers and pose a continuing threat to society.

I have a real life example. When I worked in jails as a physician I was called upon during the weekend from time to time when an individual was about to be released but was violent. I went into a cell where a person went berserk and began beating up the individuals in the cell, including me and a number of guards. I had to commit the person who then had to be sent to a psychiatric institute. If I had not done that, the individual who had a conviction sheet as long as my arm, would have been released on the unsuspecting public only to commit another crime.

We should also look at this motion and apply it to those individuals who are about to be released at the end of their parole or when their warrant date is up. There are individuals who escape through the cracks. If they escape through the cracks and are let out into society, the only people who will be hurt are innocent civilians. We can also apply this designation to having two psychiatrists examine individuals who might pose a threat to society upon release.

It is important to say that the reason my colleague is putting this motion forth is fundamentally to protect innocent civilians. We

have seen a number of tragic cases such as the recent case of Melanie Carpenter. She was murdered by Fernand Auger, an individual who never ever should have been released from jail to walk the streets.

When this motion passes-which I hope it does and the Liberal members should be embarrassed if they do not support this motion-two other aspects have to be looked at. The first aspect is amending the charter of rights and freedoms so that designations of dangerous offender are not overturned using the charter. The second aspect is the division between criminal responsibilities which fall under the federal government and mental health responsibilities which fall under the provincial government. That is why the Minister of Justice must work with his counterparts, the provincial attorneys general, to try to work this out. It will be important for this motion to come into effect.

There are other strategies to deal with sexual violent offenders. There should be a national flagging system for violent sexual offenders and sexual offenders in general. This is long overdue. Now when sexual offenders move from one province to another, the police have no way of knowing who they are, where they are going and what their prior convictions are. It is important that we have a national flagging system to enable justice and law to take its course.

We need effective and consistent prosecution of sexual offenders. We also need better assessment before sentencing. This applies not only to dangerous sexual offenders but also to violent offenders in general. Right now because of the harried crown counsels and because of a lack of resources, we are unable to do that. We can change the way our spending takes place in order to ensure that this occurs for the protection of individuals. People, such as parole officers, who decide whether or not to deem a person a dangerous offender must be held accountable for their decisions.

Clearly we must also prevent the development of dangerous and sexual offenders from occurring. We are dealing appropriately with those individuals after they raise their heads. Many of these individuals have also been victims of terrible sexual abuse and violence themselves but it does not exonerate them from what they have done. It provides us with a window of opportunity in preventing these individuals from coming before our justice system.

We have to look at children who are at risk of violence, sexual abuse and neglect. We must identify those family units and children so that we can help them early on and prevent these things from occurring. We must identify families at risk and prevent these tragedies from taking place. For those tragic souls who do become victims of violence and sexual abuse, those children must be dealt with sensitively, compassionately and with the appropriate counselling, medical and psychological treatment they need.

We have to look at these individuals who become sexual violent offenders. They do not have the pillars of a normal psyche needless to say. Those pillars were destroyed, malformed or did not occur early on in their development. It is important to identify these individuals so that we bear upon them the appropriate treatment and counselling to ensure that they do have some semblance of normal development. That is the only way we are going to prevent these individuals from being terribly dysfunctional.

This not only needs to be applied to sexual or dangerous offenders but also to a number of other conduct disorders and criminal behaviour that occurs in our society. Many of these individuals also do not have the pillars of a normal psyche.

The parents must be brought into the early education system. Many of the parents of the family units where these children are abused do not know how to be good parents. It is not a federal responsibility but it is important to bring in the provincial ministers of education and the provincial attorneys general and their federal counterparts to deal with the situation nationally.

Unless we deal with the prevention of crime, we are not going to do what we want to do, which is to decrease the overall level of crime in this country.

In closing, much has been mentioned about the cost. The cost is important but the redistribution of the spending is important. First and fundamentally, to uphold the essence of the motion which is the protection of innocence in society, our justice department must move from protecting the convicted criminal to having as its primary focus the protection of innocent individuals. It is also important to focus on prevention. I remind the House that it is not only women who are victims of sexual abuse, but also men and young boys.

In closing, I hope the House is going to pass Motion No. 116 of my colleague for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley so that Canada will be a safer place.

[Import-Export Link, May 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in Canada exports are the most important vehicle upon which we create jobs, economic growth and maintain our standard of living. We must continually be aggressive in trying to find new markets and devising better ways to compete internationally.

In an effort to aid this process I have created an import-export link on my web site on the Internet. This page will assist companies in gaining valuable information on import-export opportunities abroad, government contracts and other trade related information.

The goal of this site is to provide our companies with a temporal advantage over companies in other countries that wish to compete with us. I hope Canadian companies will use this information to their competitive advantage in order to secure valuable contracts for Canadians, thereby creating jobs and increasing economic growth.

I share this with all members of the House. I hope that they will visit this site at www.reform.ca/martin.

[Health Care, May 10th, 1996]

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

A recent poll showed that a majority of Canadians would like to be able to buy private health care insurance and private medical services. Will the government do the right thing and allow Canadians to do this by amending the Canada Health Act forthwith?