Leon Benoit

[Agriculture, September 26th, 1994]

Why do they not instead do the right thing and allow farmers to elect a board of directors to give them control over their organization, the Canadian Wheat Board?

[Agriculture, September 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, one of the farmers my colleague referred to is Andy McMechan who took advantage of the open borders guaranteed under the free trade agreement to avert foreclosure by the Farm Credit Corporation.

Why is the Prime Minister and his cabinet treating these farmers like drug dealers with these heavy-handed tactics?

[Criminal Code, September 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member if he has considered corporal punishment as an alternate deterrent to crime, an alternative to incarceration.

[Criminal Code, September 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member opposite. First of all in terms of alternatives to incarceration you mentioned several possible

alternatives. I am just wondering if you have considered seriously-

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, September 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the minister of agriculture has had a bad summer. As incredible as it might seem the minister ended the summer by equating farmers to criminals because they were shipping grain into the United States.

When will the minister stop attacking farmers and change the Canadian Wheat Board Act so that farmers have the access which is guaranteed them under the free trade agreement?

[Excise Tax Act, June 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question. I was going to ask it a little later, however I appreciate the opportunity.

I would like to ask the hon. member who has just spoken to elaborate on how, had he been in government, rather than putting this bill forth as an omnibus bill, he would have broken it down.

[Excise Tax Act, June 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, of course the hon. member knows there was a vote cast against caucus. That is not unusual in our caucus. Members are free to vote and are expected to vote for what their constituents want. That happens commonly. It is extremely common to have people voting differently on various pieces of legislation. It is probably as common in other caucuses as it is in ours.

Of course in our caucus we do propose free votes when it comes to voting in the House on certain issues. Certainly we propose always and it is the requirement and responsibility of all members of the Reform caucus to vote according to their constituents wishes. Even if the caucus takes a position and members have gone to their constituents through formal mechanisms and not just talking about them and have clearly ascertained that their constituents want them to vote a different way than caucus votes in general, then it is the obligation and not just the right of that member to vote in that way.

[Excise Tax Act, June 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the exact statistics have escaped me. I did read statistics and they were presented in the House earlier. There is no doubt that statistics have shown very clearly that the consumption of cigarettes has increased due to this reduction in cost which was brought about by the lowering of the tax on cigarettes. I cannot quote the exact figure but I am sure one of my hon. colleagues will use it in a presentation later. However, there is no doubt about the impact.

[Excise Tax Act, June 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I do agree the timing of this bill could not be worse. Just to back this up I would like to read a very short piece from yesterday's Financial Post . The title is: ``The Sky is the Limit for Tobacco Tax in the U.S.''. The article lays out very briefly that in the U.S. some experts believe that tobacco taxes will increase substantially and they will be used to fund the new health care plan which is being talked about in the U.S.

I will read this very short article: "Canada may have learned a lesson about the dangers of overtaxing cigarettes, but it has not filtered through to the U.S.". No pun intended. "As Congress and the White House crank up the campaign for a national health care program, tobacco taxes have emerged as everyone's favourite way to pay for it. The only dispute is over how high to raise them. Sam Gibbons, who took over as chairman of the

House Ways and Means committee when Dan Rostenkowski was hit with 17 corruption counts, has proposed a 45 cent U.S. increase, raising the total price to $1.69 U.S. a pack. President Bill Clinton suggested 75 cents U.S. while Senator Edward Kennedy, who chairs the Senate Labour and Human Resources Committee, wants a $1.50 U.S. increase per pack of cigarettes".

There it is. At a time when we are reducing our price per package of cigarettes the Americans are talking about increasing the cost and the sky is the limit, as the article said. This article was in the Washington Notebook column by Kelly McParland. It is a very interesting little section and I encourage members to read it.

[Excise Tax Act, June 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, before the break I was debating Bill C-32 and I was talking about the fact that this bill will encourage young people to smoke by making tobacco products more affordable to them.

I discussed my own experience in that regard, but I will also quote Professor Robert C. Allen, a visiting professor from Harvard University. It was noted how the decrease in tobacco taxes will directly impact on increasing the number of people, including young people, who take up smoking. He stated that tobacco consumption would increase by 14 per cent. Teens, being about two and a half times as price sensitive on this issue, would increase their consumption of cigarettes by about 35 per cent. All of this is because of the reduction in tobacco taxes. Even the money being used from the surtax will do little to discourage 175,000 young people from smoking. The use of tobacco and the hazards of second hand smoke are well known and documented.

One main concern I have, like many of my constituents, is the effect this legislation will have on our health care system. Another major consideration is the toll the legislation will have on human lives as increased consumption leads to further health complications.

I am not going to talk at any length about the personal tragedies caused by increased disease due to smoking. We all understand that so I will not discuss it today. However I would like to talk about the less direct human toll which will be brought about as a result of this tax.

Reformers support decreasing overall taxes, but we have to question whether this bill will do that at all. Does this bill decrease tax? I say it does not. A select group may be paying lower taxes to start off with, but all Canadian taxpayers will end up paying more money in the future because of the increased health care costs associated with smoking. It will require increased taxes to pay this additional cost brought about by increased smoking and the increased health hazards that result.

Professor Robert C. Allen notes that further proposed reductions in tobacco taxation will have a devastating impact on the health of Canadians since they will significantly expand tobacco consumption. He also states that lowering cigarette taxes would lead to large increases in cigarette consumption with significantly higher levels of death from tobacco related diseases. Professor Allen is backing up what I said and what many have said before me. Therefore the health expenditure would rise sharply and tax receipts would drop.

Have the long term costs of our health care system been considered properly by the government in this legislation? I say the answer is no.

Extra costs to health care resulting from increased smoking and related disease have not been properly considered, as I discussed earlier and reductions in the much needed health services, including elective surgery, will be put under further stress as a result of this further spending on this group who need additional services because of smoking related health problems.

I am saying that because of these increased smoking related health problems and costs there will be less money available for elective surgery. I am sure all of us know already the problems that we have in receiving elective surgery on time. This will further complicate that problem.

Even if the government does down the road, as I hope it will, decide to bring increased efficiency into our health care system, thus reducing the cost of delivering our system as it is today, we also need to bring the cost of health care to a reasonable level. We must, in any way we can, reduce unnecessary disease such as that brought about by cigarette smoking.

The next point I would like to discuss is the timing of reducing tobacco taxes. I think it is impeccably bad. I believe I will put this point off until a little bit later and if I do not have time to come back to the point I am sure my colleagues will question me on the issue of timing.

For the past four months my constituents have told me, in no uncertain terms, that they do not support the government in reducing this tobacco tax. This Liberal government told us during the campaign and has told us since that it is determined to listen to the will of Canadians. The Liberals said they would be more democratic, they would be more responsive to the wishes of Canadians. We have heard that again and again. The action the government has taken on this issue indicates that it is just talk. It is just hot air. The government is not willing to listen to Canadians. I have heard from MPs across the country that their constituents do not support the government on this issue of lowering tobacco taxes. The government may pay lip service to consulting with Canadians, but once again the action does not match the lip service.

I would like to present what has become a Reform tradition; that is, when Reformers criticize the views or legislation presented before the House, they present constructive alternatives. Today I will do that in regard to the tobacco tax issue.

It is important to examine whether there are other ways to combat this problem of smuggling other than reduction of tobacco taxes. Unfortunately Bill C-32 is just another example of the government avoiding the real problem and refusing to face it head on.

Real solutions can come only if the problem has been clearly identified and then dealt with in a straightforward manner. I believe that by caving in on the issue of cigarette smuggling and the problem it has caused and will continue to cause, the

government has taken the easy way out. The government did not have any difficulty identifying the fact that smuggling was the problem, and I give it credit for that. It seems to have difficulty coming up with a common sense solution.

A more rigorous attempt at enforcing our laws should have been the first action undertaken by the government. Smuggling is a crime and those involved must be dealt with accordingly. Criminals should be treated like criminals regardless of race, colour, gender, religion or geographic location. If rigorous law enforcement meant going on the reserves where over 70 per cent of the smuggling took place, according to RCMP figures, this action should have been taken.

Was the government so intimidated by past events such as the Oka crisis-I admit a very scary, undesirable situation-that it backed down on enforcing the law? It is a question I would like the members opposite to ask and answer of themselves. If this is true it sets a very dangerous precedent on how we deal with crime. We have seen a similar process of dealing with crime in regard to the Young Offenders Act and gun control.

On the Young Offenders Act, was direct straightforward open action taken to help solve the problem? From the legislation we have just seen presented to the House, direct action was not taken.

On gun control, the Minister of Justice has shown again and again that the approach he will take is not the direct common sense approach, but rather is a roundabout approach, that of restricting guns and the use of guns, to no avail. No direct action is taken which really deals with the problem.

A further effect of this legislation is that it creates inequity from province to province. The prices for tobacco are now vastly different from province to province. I recognize there are other tax provisions that combat interprovincial smuggling. What if it gets out of hand, as did the cross-border smuggling between Canada and the U.S.?

I believe that will happen, and I have heard members of the House comment, hopefully in jest, that they should take a box of cigarettes back to Alberta or Saskatchewan or B.C. with them because there is good money to be made in smuggling between the provinces now. It is absurd way to deal with the problem. What happened to the direct common sense approach?

My home province of Alberta has never before experienced a smuggling problem, at least until now, but I do believe that is what will happen with this bill. Reducing the tobacco taxes in some provinces but not in others will lead to smuggling between provinces at an ever increasing rate. It certainly will lead to substantial smuggling into Alberta.

In defending Bill C-32 this morning the hon. Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions stated that the smuggling problem was undermining the government's health plan. Let us look at the logic of that statement. Let us follow the path of logic through.

Smuggling led to a lower price per package of cigarettes and therefore people were buying more. Because people were buying more, this increased the costs incurred by Canadian health care because of the health risks associated with smoking. What was the government's solution? It lowered the tax on cigarettes.

This resulted in a lower price for cigarettes making them more affordable for everyone, not just those who were buying smuggled cigarettes. Does any member in this House buy that as a path of logic? I think not. This further undermines the government's own health plan in Canada. The government has legalized the demise of its own health plan. Nothing is accomplished by this legislation.

In conclusion, this keep the peace style of government has not worked in the past and will not work in the future. It is time for the government to stop shirking its responsibility in dealing with this problem and to show some leadership. That is what Canadians want. If the government is not prepared to do that then I want to assure members in this House that Reformers certainly are prepared to do so and we will if government does not.