Leon Benoit

[Tobacco Act, October 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, of course the member does not have to respond. It is not question period. We do not get responses in question period anyway, quite frankly.

The member made a point that climate change would do this and that. Is the climate change she is anticipating global warming or global cooling? The sources are pretty evenly matched on that issue. They do not know whether the climate change is likely to be global warming or global cooling. I asked her to cite just one solid reference, one source for this information.

As we asked this in question period dozens of times and during the debate on Kyoto before and after Canada took its position. Again, she has refused to give even one reference. I guess that shows where this debate is going.

[Tobacco Act, October 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by asking the member who did not respond by giving me even one single source—

[Tobacco Act, October 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate this question and I mean that so sincerely.

We stood here in the House in the last session when the Kyoto deal was being talked about and we asked the environment minister time after time, day after day to show the study the government is basing Canada's position on that indicates man plays any role in climate change and to bring that evidence forward. We wanted to see it and we still want to see it.

The member talks about the harm from climate change. We know that climate change has happened throughout history. We know from records that have been left that climate change has happened. However, when it comes to evidence that man plays a significant role in any way in climate change, I would like the member to cite her sources so I can look into this evidence as well.

[Tobacco Act, October 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I know this is not question period. I know the minister does not have to answer but I appreciate his getting up on questions and comments to make some comments. I asked two questions. If the minister is going to respond, he should answer those questions. Canadians would really appreciate hearing his response to those questions.

Will the minister commit any extra revenue his government will get as a result of the phase-in as opposed to immediate full implementation to prevention and health care to deal with the problem? Will he commit that any candidate running for the Liberal Party at the time of the next election or any candidate running in a byelection will not take one penny from the tobacco lobby?

[Tobacco Act, October 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to make a very short intervention on this bill. We have heard debate on the bill. I was very pleased earlier to see the Minister of Health get involved in the debate. I am going to ask the minister to get involved again.

We heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health say that this legislation will eventually lead to an ultimate ban. She used those terms. I have a concern, because while the government is talking tough, we have seen absolutely nothing from the government. We do not know whether it is going to carry through. I think it is accurate to say that this is the first time in Canadian history we have seen a government actually back off and get weaker in this area.

I would like to see the minister's real commitment on this issue. I really want to test the minister's commitment and ask him two questions.

Will the minister direct all revenue from tobacco, or at least any extra revenue that his government will receive as a result of the phase-in as opposed to immediate implementation, not to general revenue but to prevention and health care? That is the first question.

The second question I would like the minister to respond to is will the minister pledge that his party and all candidates in the next federal election and any byelection will not take a penny from the tobacco lobby or individuals involved in the tobacco lobby?

[Tobacco Act, October 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made another comment that I would like him to elaborate on, and that is that he believes that the portion of this bill that is supposed to be phased in will never happen. I have heard others in the debate make that comment as well. They believe that the phase in will never happen, that the government will back off on this once again, as it did on the original piece of legislation.

[Tobacco Act, October 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the member has certainly spoken in very strong terms about this bill. It is clear that he feels very emotional about it.

Can the member elaborate on why he believes that not just this government but governments over the past several years have refused to take a tough stand on this issue when we have known for some time through scientific evidence that this addiction is deadly and that children are taking up the addiction because of advertising?

I would also ask the member to elaborate on the comments he made surrounding his belief that there are several people on the government side who would vote against this bill if they were given the chance to do so. I would like him to explain clearly what he means by that.

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, October 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to do a bit of reminiscing but I will try to keep it short.

I think back to when I started paying taxes in 1970 and what the tax act was like then. It is interesting to make a comparison between the forms we had to fill out then and the ones we fill out now. I began working in depth with the tax act in 1977. At that time the tax act was not too thick. We now have an act that is literally a stack. It is impossible for anyone to completely understand it.

The complexity of the act is one thing, but the question I want to direct to the member for Calgary Centre is regarding the lack of respect it has shown toward taxpayers. Back in 1977 when I started working in depth with taxpayers I found many cases where taxpayers were considered to be guilty by Revenue Canada even when the evidence was not presented. Just on Revenue Canada's say so, a letter was sent to a taxpayer saying he or she was guilty of underpaying and in some cases beyond that.

In about 1984 or 1985 the Conservative government put in tax fairness legislation which helped and was a good thing. After that time I noticed that taxpayers were given the benefit of the doubt. They were treated much more fairly overall. There was less of them being considered guilty before their case was even heard.

The GST then came in and the same Conservative government, when it put the GST in place, did not put the tax fairness legislation in place to cover the GST. With the GST we see the same type of treatment of taxpayers that I saw in 1977 as I dealt with individuals where people were treated very unfairly and harassed in many cases by the GST people.

I have now been a member of parliament for the last five years but in the last couple of years I have noticed this trend toward more harassment even in the income tax area which is of great concern.

I would like to ask the member if he sees anything in this legislation that will ensure that fair treatment of taxpayers will be protected inside this agency.

[Trade, September 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, after that question I think it is important that we ask a question that really is important to farmers.

Yesterday in response to a question from the Leader of the Official Opposition, the trade minister said he had initiated action under NAFTA and the WTO as his response for dealing with unfair trade action on the part of Americans against Canadian farmers. We know that it will take weeks and months for any conclusion to be reached.

I ask the minister what are farmers supposed to do for the next weeks and months, farmers like those in the gallery, to put bread on their own tables as a result of this unfair action?

[Petitions, September 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to present this petition on behalf of the people of Lakeland constituency who ask for the repeal of Bill C-68, and that the money being spent on this bill be redirected to programs that are proven to be cost effective at reducing crime and in improving public safety such as an increase in the number police officers on the street and more effective crime prevention programs.