1987-11-23

Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), 1 have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to 16 petitions Nos. 332-3213, 3323229, 332-3230, 332-3232, 332-3233, 332-3236, 332-3237, 332-3240, 332-3243, 332-3270, 332-3272 to 332-3274 and 332-3275 to 332-3277.



Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and pleasure of tabling several hundred signatures from residents of New Brunswick. Your petitioners humbly inform the House that Canada Post's new corporate plan has created two classes of citizens by permanently installing its super boxes in urban and rural areas; that closing rural post offices deprives Canadians of a unique federal presence and reduces postal services that are vital to rural areas; and that rate increases, especially for second class mail, jeopardize the distribution by mail of many newspapers, weeklies, regional papers, magazines and religious publications; Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament reject Canada Post's plan and urge the Corporation to deliver the mail to all Canadian taxpayers, without exception.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 197, 198, 200, and 212.


Mr. Howie: In 1987, does the Department of National Defence plan to place orders for the replacement of ships or the acquisition of new ones and, if so, how many?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Defence):: As
stated in the White Paper, the Department of National Defence plans to replace six more of its existing frigates through Phase II of the Ship Replacement Program (SRP II).


Mr. Howie: 1.	How many destroyers are currently on strength in the Canadian Armed Forces?
2.	Of this number, how many are (a) under repair (b) otherwise incapable of going to sea?


Henry Perrin Beatty: 1.
Twenty-three.
2. (a) One. (b) Nil.


Mr. Howie: 1.	For the latest date for which figures are available, at CFB Gagetown, Oromocto, N.B., how many (a) permanent civilian personnel (b) temporary or 'term' civilian personnel (c) regular force military personnel (d) militia personnel on callout were on strength?
2.	Of those military personnel who were employed at CFB Gagetown, how many were (a) in combat trades (b) in non-combat and support trades?


Henry Perrin Beatty: 1. (a)
656; (b) 192; (c) 3,254; (d) 12.
2. (a) (i) Regular Force 1,787; (ii) Militia 5. (b) (i) Regular Force 1,467; (ii) Militia 7.


Mr. Nickerson: With respect to each gold loan made by the Bank of Canada currently outstanding (a) to whom is the gold being lent (b) how much gold is being lent (c) what is the term of the loan (d) what rate of interest is being charged?

November 23, 1987
Tobacco Products


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Gold loans are made from the holdings of the Exchange Fund (a special account of the Minister of Finance which serves as the main repository of Canada's official international reserves). Gold loans have been made to the Royal Canadian Mint in connection with its gold coin programs and to financial institutions and precious metal dealers who are active in the gold market. The loans are made on commercial terms for maturities up to six months. As of October 31, 1987, total loans outstanding amounted to 601 thousand ounces. It would prejudice the Account's competitive position to reveal the details of individual transactions.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: that Bill C-51, an Act to prohibit the advertising and promotion and respecting the labelling and monitoring of tobacco products, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-51 now before the House addresses the issue of current tobacco marketing practices. Its effect would be to ban the advertising of tobacco products available for sale in Canada. It would also ban tobacco product promotion and regulate labelling and the reporting of technical information.
The federal Government has taken an active role in addressing the issue of cigarette smoking. It is important for people to understand why smoking, which was thought of as merely a personal habit, has become a legitimate public concern. There is overwhelming evidence that tobacco smoke is the largest preventable cause of illness, disability and premature death in Canada. Moreover, it has also become evident that Canadians who are consistently exposed to smoke in the environment may suffer from adverse health effects. Not surprisingly, the public is increasingly asking for an environment that protects non-smokers from tobacco smoke.
[DOT] (M10)
As Minister of National Health and Welfare, my primary concern is the health of Canadians. Therefore, I must do all that I can to protect their health by discouraging the advertising and promotion of tobacco, and by increasing public health knowledge of the health hazards of smoking.
This is not a moral crusade. It is not a case of some overzealous individuals attempting to force their life-style on others. It is responsible government action in reaction to overwhelming evidence that tobacco, despite its widespread use by a third of the adult population, is actually responsible for nearly 100 deaths a day in Canada.
The health risks of tobacco were realized long after it had become an established industry and millions of Canadians had become dependent. If tobacco were discovered tomorrow, no government would permit its sale, let alone its advertising. No one is immune, since scientific studies have revealed that nonsmokers can be harmed in a smoke polluted environment.
Each year tobacco prematurely kills Canadians. On average, one Canadian dies of smoke related illness every 17 minutes of every day. I ask the rhetorical question, do Canadians, and those who may have some hesitation about this form of legislation, not have a right to expect that a Minister of health and a Parliament has a duty to face those facts? Victims are obviously mostly smokers, but some are non-smokers, and they are Canadians of all ages.
At least 500,000 Canadians have died prematurely of tobacco related illnesses since 1964. I choose that year because it was in that year that the Surgeon General of the United States first published the link between cigarette smoking and death. About one-quarter of deaths among people aged 35 to 84 in 1985 could be attributed to smoking. Today, smoking continues to be the leading cause of preventable death in Canada.
Tobacco is not a consumer product like any other widely advertised product on the market. Tobacco, a toxic and addictive substance, is the only consumer product that is dangerous when used exactly as intended. There simply is no level of safe smoking.
Of 23 known human carcinogens, 6 are components of tobacco smoke. Tobacco smoke also contains dozens of other chemicals that are toxic to humans. Tobacco is such a highly addictive substance that the vast majority of individuals who smoke are unable to limit their intake, even if they are aware of the health risks and would like to quit. Only 30 per cent of tobacco users manage to break their addiction, although polls show that more than 80 per cent would like to do so.
Some killer connections, like lung cancer and emphysema, are reasonably well known. However, many Canadians, especially the many teenagers who smoke, do not realize that heart disease is actually the leading cause of death among smokers. Almost no one knows that gangrene and amputations result from some tobacco caused peripheral vascular diseases.
November 23, 1987

Few know that in terms of over-all mortality and death rates, low tar, low nicotine cigarettes appear to be only slightly less hazardous than high tar, high nicotine brands.
In 1969, an all-Party committee of the House of Commons concluded that there was no longer any scientific controversy regarding the risk created by cigarette smoking. But it stated that the tobacco industry, by refusing to accept the established medical evidence, was directly responsible for causing confusion and delays. That was stated in 1969 by an all-Party committee of this House, and I would suggest that the same remains today.
Action is long overdue. A Private Member's Bill, Bill C-204, is further action in this House in respect to this legislation. We do not need more studies. We do not need more dead and disabled bodies. We need immediate action, including preventive educational campaigns and concrete efforts to strip tobacco of its alluring image.
Accordingly, on April 30, I tabled in the House of Commons Bill C-51, the Tobacco Products Control Act, and today it is here for second reading. The main provisions contained in the Bill are the following. First, with respect to advertising promotion of tobacco products, a ban on the advertising of tobacco products sold in Canada; a prohibition of the use of the brand name of a tobacco product or its trade mark, in any promotion of tobacco companies sponsorship or other support for any activity event, publication or broadcast; the prohibition of any free distribution of tobacco products; the prohibition of any gifts or cash rebates or the right to participate in contests, lotteries, or games related to the proof of purchase of a tobacco product; and prohibition of the use of a tobacco product brand name or trade mark on any non-tobacco goods that may be used to promote the sale of the product.
Second, with respect to labelling of tobacco products, a requirement that tobacco product packages display, on a rotating basis, a series of new, stronger, more visible health warnings; a requirement that packages also display a listing of toxic constituents found in tobacco products or tobacco smoke, including levels of tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide; and a restriction on the use of writing on tobacco product packages to the name, brand name, and any trade marks of the tobacco product and information specifically required by this and any other relevant legislation.
I do not know, Mr. Speaker, and I know that it does not include you, whether Members of the House have recently looked at a tobacco product and read the warning. The warning is totally inconsequential. Keep in mind that it is on a tobacco package. What the Minister of National Health and Welfare is warning the purchaser and the user to do, when he or she uses the product, is to avoid inhaling. That is how weak the message is today.
Third, with respect to reporting of tobacco related information to the Government, a requirement that constituents specified by regulations and their quantities, in the tobacco product itself or the smoke produced from it, be reported; and
Tobacco Products
a requirement that tobacco product production, import and sales information also be provided.
In the Bill there are also effective dates. I know that implementation of those dates will need adjustment, and that will be an examination to which the legislative committee will have to give close consideration.
My decision to introduce those strong and comprehensive legislative measures to control tobacco products came following much thoughtful consideration. After examining the evidence that has accumulated on the effects of tobacco and tobacco smoke, I came to the conclusion that continued advertising and promotion of a product which is so clearly hazardous and addictive poses a significant threat to public health that is no longer acceptable. Tobacco use has become a national public health problem of pressing and substantial concern.
The effects of direct exposure to tobacco have been clearly demonstrated over the past decades. Approximately 35,000 Canadians die prematurely each year from smoke-related diseases. Smoking contributes to some 30 per cent of cancer deaths, 30 per cent of heart disease deaths, and 85 per cent of chronic obstructive lung disease deaths.
Moreover, we have become increasingly concerned that smoking is a health hazard to non-smokers. Those who share indoor space with smokers can be placed at health risk, particularly when they are exposed for long periods of time.
A report of the U.S. Surgeon General recently concluded that involuntary smoking "is a cause of disease including lung cancer in healthy non-smokers". I am pleased today to add that an expert committee here in Canada, which convened at the request of my Department, has also completed a review of the world-wide evidence on this matter. In its report entitled "Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke", it concluded that the chronic inhalation of environmental tobacco smoke by nonsmokers is associated with increased risk of various diseases including lung cancer. The expert committee also reported that all available scientific evidence on passive smoking is consistent with policies which eliminate all involuntary exposure.
These statistics on smoking in Canada indicate the existence of a serious health problem and suggest certain disturbing trends. Currently Canada ranks as one of the top 10 countries in the world in per capita consumption of cigarettes. A Gallup poll conducted in May of 1985 showed that 34 per cent of Canadians 18 years of age and over smoke cigarettes. While the proportion of smokers in Canada has been slowly decreasing, the number of young Canadian women smoking continues to increase. Among Canadian women in their twenties the proportion of daily smokers increased from 36 per cent in 1983 to 45 per cent in 1986. While we see the trends in general going down, among Canadian women we see the trend going up.

November 23, 1987
Tobacco Products
Obviously we are concerned about various cancers, especially young women and breast cancer. Today the rate of lung cancer among Canadian women is almost equal to that of breast cancer. I ask Canadians in a very straightforward manner whether they expect their Minister of Health, their Government, and their Parliament to be silent in the face of that type of evidence.
I would suggest that Parliament is trying to catch up with public opinion on the issue. Moreover, smoking rates remain high for young people, many of whom start to smoke even before reaching their teenage years. The onset of regular smoking often takes place as early as age 12. By age 18 to 19, 37 per cent of young people are smoking daily. The facts that so many teenagers continue to smoke daily and that young women are now smoking more suggest that the recent over-all decline in cigarette sales may be offset in the near future by increases brought about by a new generation of smokers.
The decision to start smoking is not an informed choice. It is a decision precipitated by what young people perceive to be the social acceptability and desirability of tobacco use. Sophisticated and well-targeted tobacco advertising has much to do with creating powerful and appealing images of the lifestyle of a smoker. To minimize any potential health concerns young people may have, ads have been cleverly designed to show healthy looking, physically active smokers enjoying their workout in the gym, taking to the ski slopes, bicycling in the clean outdoors, and in general staying trim and keeping fit. These ads are not designed to impart factual information about tobacco products or the consequence of their use.
Just recently in the British Journal of Addictions there are some interesting statistics to indicate that children at a very early age are able to identify brand names with advertising. I will not go into those statistics today, but we find indications that children under the age of 10 years can already identify brand names with the ads.
1 wish to make another point which I stated to some ad executives the other day. Is the advertising industry of Canada, in spending S75 million on tobacco ads, so inefficient that that $75 million does not convince one Canadian to try the product? Yet, they turn around and argue "give us your account and we will sell your product". Why does it work with every product except tobacco?
The public has certainly become more concerned about tobacco advertising and promotion since the sponsorship of the R. J. R. Macdonald Tobacco company of the Canadian Ski Association in 1983, ad campaigns which were directed toward recruiting new smokers among Canadian youth. The manufacturers claim that their sole purpose in advertising is to promote brand switching among current smokers. However, in view of the fact that smoking habits are generally established by age 20, it is not surprising that there is the temptation to engage in tobacco marketing activities targeted at youth.
Currently the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers Council has a code to regulate voluntarily the advertising and promotion practices of member companies. While the code is partially restricted to tobacco advertising, the rules are weak and many of them have been violated.
In response to the concerns regarding tobacco advertising and promotion, I have on a number of occasions met with representatives of the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers Council over the past few years. On the whole these discussions have failed to persuade me that a voluntary selfregulating approach to advertising is workable.
The purpose of tobacco advertising is to encourage over-all tobacco use. The advertiser hopes that it will also encourage the use of his particular brand. Alternatively it is the policy of the Government to discourage tobacco use. Since these objectives are mutually incompatible, the Government has concluded that legislation banning all tobacco product advertising is the only acceptable option.
There is a strong national consensus calling for action. Public opinion polls indicate that a majority of Canadians favour measures similar to those proposed here. In 1987, 67 per cent of those expressing an opinion supported the proposal of the federal Government to ban tobacco advertising, which was an increase from 62 per cent in 1986. In 1979, 80 per cent favoured federal legislation for health warnings and toxic substances reporting on packages. This consensus in favour of action supports the national movement toward non-smoking, which is getting stronger.
I say to my colleagues in the House that health is not a partisan issue. While the Government is generally supportive of health regulation, this is not the case where products have serious health consequences. The challenge facing us is to regulate in such a manner as to protect public health and safety while imposing the fewest restrictions possible on individual freedoms.
Let me say a few words about freedom of speech, a freedom treasured by all of us in the House. Freedom of speech must be accompanied by the responsible exercise of that freedom. Freedom and responsibility are like two sides of the same coin; they are inseparable. Many Canadians believe that the responsible exercise of freedom of speech does not include the freedom to advertise addictive products. The responsible exercise of freedom of speech does not include the freedom to portray a lethal product as glamorous and socially acceptable. It does not include the freedom to advertise and promote addictive lethal products which can be easily obtained by teenagers and even younger children.
I submit that tobacco advertising conducted in exactly these ways represents the exercise of freedom without responsibility. One-sided coins are being spread around the community purporting to represent freedom of speech. There is a tail side of alleged free speech, but the coins have no head side of social responsibility. This coinage is worthless; it is without value.
November 23, 1987

Prohibiting the sale of a social drug like tobacco is not feasible, but prohibiting the advertising and promotion of this toxic substance is both feasible and desirable. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides for reasonable limits on our freedoms including freedom of speech. Since the evidence shows tobacco use to be a public health problem of pressing and national concern, a complete ban on tobacco promotion is consistent with a responsible health policy under our Constitution. By outlawing tobacco advertising, the federal Government is conveying a clear, unequivocal message-tobacco is a dangerous substance.
The advertising ban is but only a part, although a key part, of a long term comprehensive health oriented policy on tobacco and smoking. The long term objective is to bring about a significant decline in smoking and tobacco consumption. An essential tool for meeting this objective is the national program to reduce tobacco use, a joint effort of provincial, territorial and the federal Governments plus major health organizations. In the short term, the Government's objectives are to strengthen the existing trend against the social acceptability of smoking and to enhance the credibility of the health message.
I am speaking today not only to parliamentarians but to the country and to those who are parents, relatives and close friends of children and young adults whose actions can now determine the quality and duration of their later life. To replace smokers who quit or die prematurely, the tobacco industry annually must attract many new smokers. Virtually all of these replacement smokers are children or adolescents. Tobacco purchases by children and adolescents exceed $250 million every year. While older Canadians are quitting the tobacco habit in record numbers, smoking among teenagers has not decreased.
Voluntary controls on tobacco advertising have been tried without success in Canada, and more than 15 years of experience with the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers Council voluntary code, including well documented breaches of both the spirit and the letter of its provisions, have resulted in a loss of public confidence in this approach.
Violations of virtually every rule of the voluntary code have been reported. Rule 11 prohibiting outdoor cigarette advertising adjacent to schools has been frequently flaunted. Cigarette brands have been launched with blatant appeals to youth. Health warnings which are supposed to be permanently displayed are often virtually invisible on billboards and in print ads, so we have stepped up our efforts to communicate health concerns about tobacco to Canadians, especially through increased support of the national program to reduce tobacco use.
The presence of massive amounts of tobacco product promotions, however, simply dwarfs efforts to communicate the health hazards of smoking. Simply stated, many people just do not take health warnings seriously when they are
Tobacco Products
bombarded at every turn of the head with soothing tobacco company ads promoting their product as normal, good and glamorous.
I would suggest the young are particularly vulnerable to such appeal. Young people are also good hypocrisy detectors. Tobacco ads prominently displayed at every corner store make government health warnings ring hollow. As long as glossy advertising campaigns lure young persons into thinking that smoking is okay, our society will continue to pay an unconscionable price in premature deaths and disabilities. Tobacco advertising fosters social acceptability of a dangerous product. The ability of the tobacco industry to stay healthy while its customers get sick is, according to a recent report in a business magazine cover story, "One of the most amazing marketing feats of all times".
I also want to assure Members of the House and all Canadians that the measures we are discussing are not intended to prohibit smoking in Canada. That is another argument that opponents to this legislation have said it provides for. Cigarettes have been used in Canada since the turn of the century and other tobacco products for a lot longer than that. Tobacco use has been legal too long to consider such measures. It is my intention and my hope that the Bill will continue to reduce smoking.
As well when Bill C-51 was made public other anti-smoking measures were announced, intended to strike a balance between legislative and program initiatives. By combining legislation, education, restrictions on smoking in indoor environments and transitional assistance to tobacco growers, the Government has developed a comprehensive and balanced policy to reduce the tragic consequences of smoking on our society.
For my part, Mr. Speaker, you will recall that on April 22 I announced my commitment to strengthen significantly my Department's participation in the national program to reduce tobacco smoking. This national program, launched in 1985, was established to unite provincial, territorial and federal Governments and national health organizations in co-ordinated action toward a common purpose, that of developing effective and comprehensive initiatives to reduce the use of tobacco in Canada.
We have three goals: one, to protect the health and rights of non-smokers; two, to help non-smokers stay smoke free; and three, to encourage and help those who want to quit smoking. The initial focus of the national program through the "Break Free for a New Generation of Non-Smokers" campaign has been directed at youth at the vulnerable ages of 12 to 17. In support of the national effort, the Department of National Health and Welfare has developed and is now promoting the implementation of a school based smoking prevention program for Grade 6. We are also completing work on two other educational resources, a guide book of project ideas for community youth groups such as YM-YWCA's boys and girls clubs and a smoke-free educational kit for children aged three

November 23, 1987
Tobacco Products
to six for use in day care settings and kindergarten classes. Provinces and health agencies have also tied some of their own activities into the national program, including, for example, New Brunswick's "Business for Kids" projects and Alberta's publication on women and smoking called "Break Free- Leaving the Pack Behind."
Other concerns to be addressed through the program include promoting the benefits of a smoke free life among our youth and helping them to deal with peer and other social pressures to smoke; reversing the increasing trend in smoking among young women; increasing the accessibility of effective cessation programs; supporting the initiatives of community groups responding to local needs, and ensuring that all Canadians have the opportunity to grow up, live and work in healthy smoke free environments.
Several federal departments have restricted smoking on the job. These include my own department, the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, the Auditor General's Office, the National Research Council, the Public Service Commission, Statistics Canada and others. On April 22, my colleague, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) announced new measures, both short and long term, to restrict smoking in workplaces subject to federal jurisdiction. In the short term, the Minister of Labour is requesting employers to restrict smoking in their workplaces to designated areas by the end of 1987. Also on the same day, the then President of the Treasury Board, now the Minister of State (Science and Technology) (Mr. Oberle), announced the Government's intention to ban smoking in all public service workplaces by January 1, 1989. In August, we reaffirmed our intention by announcing that for a 15 month period beginning October 1, 1987, smoking throughout the public service was to be restricted to specifically designated areas. I know this is not ideal, but I think it is a very big step forward.
As well, Mr. Speaker, you will recall that I recently wrote to you outlining my concerns about the health hazards of involuntary smoking and the need to control exposure to tobacco smoke within the precincts of the Parliament of Canada. Similar letters were sent to the Speaker of the Senate and the parliamentary librarian. I am happy to report to this House that both Speakers and the parliamentary librarian responded quickly and positively to my concerns. At their request, a committee of officials of both Houses of Parliament and the Parliamentary Library have been meeting to draw up alternative strategies for the control of tobacco use that would apply to all locations occupied by the Parliament of Canada. It is my hope that the policy adopted will be comparable to the approach taken elsewhere in federal jurisdiction.
The House will recall also that last November the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) proposed a new air regulation to ban smoking in Canadian aircraft for domestic and trans border flight segments of less than two hours. If Members of Parliament look back at what people have been telling them as they have been flying to and from their ridings, they will agree that comments from the public have been overwhelmingly
favourable. Accordingly, these new regulations will be fully implemented by Canadian airlines before the end of this year.
I recognize as well that with these changes, difficulties can occur for those in the industry. Recognizing the serious difficulties faced by tobacco farmers as demand for their products declines, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) announced the establishment of an alternative enterprise-initiated program to assist diversification in the tobacco growing regions of Canada. On April 23, in conjuction with the Ontario Agriculture and Food Minister, details of a $30 million program to assist Ontario farmers who cease tobacco production was announced, the funding of which will be shared equally by the two orders of Government.
The legislation the House is now debating has been misinterpreted in many areas. Tobacco has not been singled out for legislation; nor is it a precendent-setting exercise. Intervention to regulate dangerous or potentially dangerous products and to reduce or prevent problems is considered an appropriate role of Government in Canada. Prescription drugs, for instance, may not be advertised to the general public. Alcohol which is harmful if used in excess is already regulated both provincially and federally. If it is legally and socially acceptable to prohibit some forms of advertising, I believe we should have no qualms about prohibiting any form of advertising for the nation's leading cause of preventable death.
It is not true, as the tobacco industry claims, that ad bans in other countries have been unsuccessful. In counties where tobacco advertising has been effectively banned, consumption has remained stable and at lower levels than in Canada. Bans have been in effect since the mid 1970s in Norway and Finland. Per person consumption rates in those two countries are 50 per cent lower than in Canada. In the five years following the tobacco advertising ban in Norway, cigarette sales declined by 15 per cent with the largest component of the decline being among children and particularly girls.
If that is not sufficient evidence, we only need note what the Government of China announced last week. China is a society that is heavily into the practice of smoking. It is very interesting to see a country like China taking the lead from the World Health Organization and taking the steps that are beginning to be taken in respect to the use of this product.
Education and legislation are both important. By pursuing these complementary approaches and by working together, I am confident that we can achieve the mutually beneficial goal of a smoke-free society. In a world where private gain ranks supreme, we must not lose sight of the need to work for the indivisible social benefits that come from the pursuit of public health objectives.
If this Bill passes this stage, it will go to the legislative committee. There members of the committee will have the responsibility to decide whether the specific provisions of this Bill are reasonable and effective. They will have to look at the
November 23, 1987

issue in light of the evidence that I have presented today. 1 look forward to seeing the judgment of the legislative committee.
I believe that a smoke-free environment is as essential to human health as pasteurized milk and chlorinated water. Sooner or later, every country will ban tobacco advertising and promotion in an effort to combat the greatest man-made epidemic of modern times. Canada has the opportunity to set an important example for the rest of the world in the effective control of this critical public health problem. The decision rests with each one of us as to whether we are willing to take an active, pro-health stand or whether we are willing to defend the indefensible in the face of the evidence I have produced today.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to point out that I believe that all of us in the House of Commons today are guilty of a bit of hypocrisy in introducing this particular piece of legislation. The laudable objective of this legislation is to cut down on the consumption of cigarette and other kinds of tobacco in Canada. We all know, and we have heard the statistics from the Minister, that a cigarette is an instrument of death. However, I do not see any political party actually calling for a ban on cigarettes.
We are saying that tobacco is a hazardous product, a product responsible for thousands of preventable deaths in Canada. We are saying that it is a product which costs the health care system millions. Yet if we were to carry that argument to its ultimate conclusion, we as parliamentarians would actually vote on a Bill to ban the sale of tobacco products in Canada. However, no political party has the courage to do that.
We realize that tobacco has been a part of our culture for many hundreds of years. We realize that the negative health effects of tobacco have become evident only in the last number of years. Yet frankly, from a strict political point of view, I do not think any political party would want to go into the next election trumpeting itself as the party which will introduce prohibition on tobacco. That is a fact.
If we are stopping short of actually banning the sale of this hazardous product, what steps are we prepared to take to cut down on its use over the next number of years? Certainly, a ban on tobacco advertising is one strategy which is supportable in the move to cut down on the consumption of tobacco. However, I think there is a more fundamental principle which unfortunately the Minister did not address.
Just a few moments ago I had delivered to my desk from the legislative assistant to the Minister a summary of the expert committee report on involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke. This particular report indicates that chronic inhalation of environmental tobacco smoke, other people's smoke, is associated with an increased risk of lung cancer and that ETS probably causes lung cancer. An expert committee has made an analysis which shows that those who do not smoke but work
Tobacco Products
in a place where they are exposed to environmental smoke may have an increased risk of lung cancer.
While the Minister has introduced legislation specifically designed to deal with advertising, he has not dealt with the more fundamental right of Canadians to live and work in a smoke-free environment. The Minister has mentioned that certain initiatives will be undertaken by regulations which relate to federal Government employees, and that is to be lauded. However, there are literally millions of Canadians who live and work in places which are not covered by regulations that apply only to civil servants.
The Government is saying that it believes civil servants should have the right to work in a smoke-free environment, but what about the thousands of other employees working under federal jurisdiction who will not necessarily see any benefit arising from this legislation because there are no fines or ways of enforcing companies under federal jurisdiction which do not live up to the requirement to provide a smoke-free workplace? The employees of banks, trucking companies and other companies involved in interprovincial transport will see no respite from second-hand smoke as a result of this legislation.
More important are the millions of Canadians who work at the provincial level and are covered by provincial legislation. This Bill does nothing to provide a smoke-free work environment for the millions of Canadians who should have the right to work in a smoke-free environment.
In a small way, this legislation touches upon the future tobacco consumption pattern of teenagers and young people. Representatives from the Canadian Cancer Society who are here in the gallery today certainly see this as being a step in the right direction. It is a step in the direction of cutting down on the increasing numbers of young people who are seduced into the world of smoking as the result of things like kiddy packs, which are still legal, and advertisements which show that those who smoke are part of the gang, part of the attractive culture of young people who are in style.
Certainly this measure will deal with that in a small way. However, even if one accepts that this Bill does not address a major flaw, which means millions of Canadians will continue to have to breathe second-hand smoke for at least eight hours a day, which by the Minister's own study released today could cause them to contract cancer, we should take a few moments to look at the Bill as it relates to advertising and point out just how flawed it really is.
Many of us have been involved in the debate in this Chamber over the last number of weeks concerning the Mulroney trade deal. I submit that as a result of that deal, this legislation will do nothing to prevent the advertising of tobacco products in Canada. I will tell you why. It is quite simple.
One item on the table under the heading "Services" is printing. We know that if and when the final deal is signed, it


I 1048 COMMONS DEBATES
[Stage Direction]
November 23, 1987
Tobacco Products
will be possible for Canadian companies to go to the U.S. and have their material printed there. Let us take, for example, tobacco advertisements which have been a rather significant portion of revenue for Canadian magazine publishing companies. All those companies have to do to get around this law is to have their magazines printed in the U.S. and then sold back in Canada. If it is published in the U.S. it is not a Canadian magazine and therefore not subject to Canadian regulations governing advertising.
If the Minister really wants to bring in legislation to ban all tobacco advertising in Canada, he has to recognize that the ban should be applied equally to magazines and other reading material coming from outside the country. I do not think he wants to inadvertently introduce legislation to encourage Canadian magazines to go south of the border to be printed, so amendments have to be made. There is no point in spending a lot of time discussing this issue in this House if as soon as the trade deal is completed the Canadian publisher just turns around and has his magazine printed in the United States in order to be exempt from Canadian laws on tobacco advertising.
There is another major flaw dealing with trade marks. The Minister has stated that if a company wants to sponsor, for example, a sporting or cultural event, it can use only its corporate name. It cannot use the brand name of a cigarette or even chewing tobacco, which we know has not been addressed in this legislation. All the company has to do in order to get around this provision is to register all its brand names as corporate names.
For example, if you want to have a du Maurier Special or Player's International Tournament, for a few hundred dollars you can put together a corporation under those names and get around this law. The law does not prohibit tobacco companies from sponsoring-
Mr. Stewart:: You do not know what you are talking about.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I am not sure of his riding but the Hon. Member asks, "What is the Member talking about?". He made a comment about the U.S.S.R. during the Minister's remarks and I thought that was rather interesting. However, if he has read the legislation-


John B. Stewart: I know a hell of a lot more about it than you do.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Then he should be aware of Clause 5(1) under "Promotion":
-no person shall employ the brand name or a trade mark of a tobacco product in any representation made to the public for the purpose of acknowledging financial or other support provided by a manufacturer-
I suppose the Hon. Member has not read this far, but Clause 5(2) states quite categorically:
Notwithstanding section 3, the name of a manufacturer or importer of tobacco products may be used in a representation referred to in subsection
(D-
Quite clearly, if a company wants to advertise the Player's International, all it would have to do is incorporate a Player's International company. That would permit it to continue to advertise. The Minister knows that is true. When I was lobbied by the tobacco company, I pointed to this flaw. You know what the tobacco company said? We want to live within the spirit of the law. They also said they will live within the law as it is written. Knowing their record for not moving on voluntary bans or restrictions on advertising, they will use every loophole at their disposal to get their message out. Those loopholes include incorporating new companies and having their material printed south of the border. Unless we move amendments to address these concerns, the tobacco companies will continue to advertise in some way, shape or form in Canada.
There is another major flaw in this legislation. The Minister was right when he pointed out the disturbing consumption patterns among young people, in particular young women, as they relate to tobacco advertising. We know it is illegal for children under the age of 16 to purchase tobacco products. We also know from testimony with respect to Bill C-204 that the average age a person begins smoking is 12. How are they getting their cigarettes? They may be getting them through stores. We have had evidence to show that nine times out of 10 they can buy them directly from the corner store even though it is illegal. However, there is another way to get them with absolutely no prohibition, and that is through vending machines.
In his legislation the Minister addresses vending machines, but not to make them illegal, which seems to me to be the logical consequence of the statement that young people are smoking at a greater rate in greater numbers and earlier than ever before. Why has the Minister not introduced a ban on vending machines? What he has done is set out regulations on advertising on vending machines. How can the Minister justify his intention to allow the continued growth of vending machines when he knows they are one sure fire way for children to get cigarettes? When a six-year old puts, I guess, three "Loons" in a vending machine he or she gets a package of cigarettes in the same way a 60-year old does. Quite clearly if the Minister is committed to reducing consumption among juveniles, one way of doing that is through a ban on vending machines, which is not contained in this legislation.


Mr. Oostrom:: Tell your buddy Peterson.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Pardon me?


John Martin Oostrom: Tell your buddy, Peterson.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Member for Willowdale (Mr. Oostrom) says, "Tell your buddy, Peterson". That is interesting, Madam Speaker. I just happen to have a letter from that Member for Willowdale who says, "Tell your buddy Peterson". I can understand why Members on the government side of the House are a little edgy with regard to this Bill. I would like to



vg


November 23, 1987

read into the record a letter which was sent out by the Member for Willowdale. He calls this piece of legislation a form of censorship which has no place in our free market society. He sent this letter to the President of Ted Bates Advertising Inc. It reads:
The thrust of Bill C-51 is to curb the social acceptability of smoking

The total ban on tobacco however, is a form of censorship which has no place in our free-market society.
It is not the role of the government to selectively decide what commercial messages may be heard by the population. The cornerstone of our democracy is freedom of speech and expression, and this may be inconsistent with our charter of rights and freedoms. Further, the proposed ban does not prevent foreign magazines from carrying tobacco ads.
The letter goes on:
I will be approaching the Minister to reconsider his proposed legislation on banning all tobacco advertising, for I sincerely felt that this action represents an intervention in the marketplace which threatens individuals and commercial freedoms.


An Hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Obviously the Member has support from some other Members on the government side.


John B. Stewart: He sure does.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The letter concludes:
I believe that a solution can be worked out which will address both sides on the issue.
Once again, thank you for taking the time to inform me of your opinion on this subject. Best wishes and warm regards.
I would not have read this letter into the record had the Member for Willowdale not somehow suggested to me that the solution to this problem lies with the provincial Government of Ontario when he has promised the advertisers that he personally will go to the Minister of Health and will personally move to stop this Bill.
Yet, we have been threatened by the Government that if we put up too many speakers on this legislation the Government will drop the Bill and will blame it on the Opposition. That is because the government Minister involved does not want to let his Members loose to speak their minds about this piece of legislation. He wants a cosy little deal and I can understand why.
I have other letters. If the Member would like I will read some letters which other members of the Conservative Party sent out in out in opposition to this Bill.
I have tried to point out what I consider to be a number of flaws in the Bill which I believe will neuter the Bill and render it impotent in what I consider to be the main objectives, that of providing a smoke-free environment for Canadians. The first is guaranteeing a smoke-free workplace and the second is cutting down on consumption by strategies including a ban on advertising.
I think that a ban on advertising is completely defensible. 1 agree with the Minister that there are many other instances
Tobacco Products
where, as a part of public policy, we have introduced restrictions. 1 think, for example, of the restrictions which have been introduced with regard to the advertising of pharmaceutical products. I think of the voluntary ban on the advertising of distilled spirits which was entered into under the threat of legislation. There are certainly many instances where the Government has deemed, whether as a result of a voluntary ban or public policy, that certain messages are not good to be transmitted through the media.
I also admit that in the support of this legislation we in this House are all guilty of hypocrisy because we are not prepared to take the full step of a total ban. However, from the point of view of societal norms I do not believe that that is a possibility at this time.
The Member on the government side likened this piece of legislation to measures in the U.S.S.R. I think he did so because he has concerns about some of his constituents. When the first legislation on this issue was introduced last April we did not hear very much about alternative funding for the tobacco farmers who are being driven out of business as a result of decreasing consumption of tobacco and will certainly be further affected by this legislation. I was happy to hear the Minister make some mention in his speech today to some transitional funding for them which we have to consider.
We must also consider the role of the Government in offering transitional funding for sports and cultural organizations which could be adversely affected by corporate requirements to move away from their sponsorship. I believe that the Government must address that issue in tandem with this legislation.
Madam Speaker, I think that as far as the smoking problem is concerned, what we as Members of this House have to decide today is whether we want to adopt strategies that will lead to a reduction in the consumption of tobacco in Canada. If we wanted to be really thorough about this, and I think all Parties would agree, we would have to ban the sale of tobacco products in Canada, but we know that is not possible. It is impossible because smoking has been part of our culture for thousands of years.


Ms. McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: No, no, no!


Sheila Maureen Copps: I knew 1 would be corrected by my hon. colleague who knows far more about the subject than I do. I am looking forward to her comments.
In any case, smoking has been ingrained in our society for quite some time, and not one political party would have the courage today to make banning the sale of tobacco in Canada part of its political platform in the next election. That would be hardly likely.

November 23, 1987
Tobacco Products
What we must do as Members is, first of all, give Canadians a working environment where they will not be exposed to smoke produced by others. According to a report released today by the Minister's office, people who work in environments where there is a great deal of smoke are more likely to get cancer. I think the primary purpose of any Bill of this kind should be to guarantee Canadians a smoke-free environment at work. That we do not find in this document, and we do not find it because the Minister prefers to proceed by regulating federal employees. That is fine for federal workers, but many people working in the private sector or even the federal level will not be entitled to a smoke-free environment because the regulations do not even impose fines on companies that refuse to provide such an environment for their employees.
If I happen to work in a small transport company or bank and I want to claim the right to work in a smoke-free environment, I can't because there is not even a mechanism to apply the regulations. And that is one of the flaws in this Bill.
Another flaw in this legislation is one that will have to be examined very closely in committee, and I am referring to the consequences of the Mulroney Free Trade Agreement, because . . .


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order please. The Hon. Member is aware she should refer to the Hon. Member for Manicouagan as the Right Hon. Prime Minister and not by his name. The Prime Minister is treated the same as all other Members.
The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, I was referring to the Mulroney-Reagan free trade deal.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The deal to which the Hon. Member is referring is between two countries and does not bear the name of any Hon. Member. In this case, the Hon. Member should have referred to the Right Hon. Prime Minister.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The House is aware that under this Canada-US deal, printing is defined as a service, which creates a situation in view of the fact that this Bill refers specifically to magazines which are published by Canadians in Canada. Since magazines such as Maclean's or Chatelaine may be printed in the United States, as a result of the Canada-US deal and then be imported into Canada, they could therefore still contain tobacco advertising. In this case, if we are really serious about prohibiting the advertising and promotion of tobacco products in Canada, we should propose amendments to this Bill to really cover all magazines sold in Canada, whether imported or printed here, failing which, Madam Speaker, when the provisions of the Canada-US deal authorize accross-the-border printing within the next two years, tobacco manufactures will be able to pressure Canadian publishers into having their magazines sold here but printed in
the United States, thereby avoiding the regulations which will result from this Bill.
On the other hand, since this Bill will only prohibit the trade mark use of a product with sports events, for instance, they will be able to refer to the Imperial Tobacco Races or the Imperial Competition; they would not be able to refer to the Players Competition, because Players now is the trade mark of a product. To bypass the provisions of Bill C-51, companies need only introduce such names as Players Inc. or DuMaurier Inc. It is a well known fact that for a few hundred dollars, a company may be incorporated in Canada under another name and thus not fall within the scope of this Bill.
It has other deficiencies. The minister himself emphasized that the purpose of this Bill was to reduce tobacco consumption among children and teenagers, for adults have come to realize the detrimental effects of tobacco and there has been a marked decline in tobacco use among them. But among teenagers, partly because of advertising and partly because of peer pressure, there has been an abnormal increase in tobacco consumption, especially among young women; if the minister really wants to prevent an increase of tobacco use among teenagers, I suggest the Bill should also prohibit all cigarette vending machines in Canada. As you know, Madam Speaker, it is already illegal to sell cigarettes to young people under 16 years of age; while some stores will sell them cigarettes, others will not. But if there is a cigarette vending machine, and if I am seven years old with three quarters in my pockets- nowadays it is more like three dollars-but that was the case quite a long time ago.
A seven-year old with three dollars' worth of change can get cigarettes the same as a sixty-year-old. I think the Minister also should have banned vending machine sales, to make sure that the young will not be able to obtain cigarettes outside convenience stores and that the latter are more strictly regulated with respect to the sale of tobacco to minors.
It is common knowledge, and we were told by witnesses appearing before the committee considering Bill C-204, that there were convenience stores-I believe the figure mentioned was twenty-where young teenagers could obtain tobacco. They were able to purchase tobacco in 19 out of 20 convenience stores, even young teenagers, even though it was illegal, so it is clear everyone is selling tobacco indiscriminately. That is why I think we should have stricter regulations to deal with this and with vending machine sales, which should be banned. There is nothing to that effect in the Bill before the House today.
We know there are many flaws in this legislation, though its purpose is a laudable and admirable one, which is to reduce tobacco consumption step by step. What we also knew, and we heard many comments in this respect. . . Madam Speaker, if you had seen the slides presented by the Canadian Medical Association! They were quite extraordinary for people like me who have never had a close look at the deadly effects smoking
November 23, 1987

can have. There was a lot of testimony to support the statement that cigarettes could be lethal, not just to those who smoke them but also to those who are exposed to ambient smoke.
Since the purpose of this legislation is to reduce consumption of a product that is bad for Canadians-I was a smoker once, I smoked for a long time before I gave it up-I think the purpose is admirable, and that is why we intend to support this Bill, but I think we will table a number of amendments to clarify the impact of the Mulroney-Reagan Agreement-the Canada U.S. Agreement. We intend to propose a number of amendments to clear up the problem about company names. We will also try to table amendments that will include what I consider to be our most important goal, which is to guarantee all Canadians the right to work in a smoke-free environment.
As I explained earlier, it is very odd that the federal Government has adopted regulations concerning federal employees, while, as we all know, Parliament remains sacrosanct, so that regulations that would prohibit federal employees from smoking as of 1989 would not apply to Parliament. This means that we, the Members of this House who will vote today on the second reading stage of this Bill and who will soon be voting on the third reading stage, that we are about to adopt regulations that would ban smoking by federal employees while we are not prepared to have the same regulations apply to our own employees.
So that is one more loophole in the regulations presented by the Minister with his colleague, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Mazankowski), a loophole that should be closed by amendments that will be proposed by the Liberal Party.
There are so many loopholes in the legislation that I think one could probably drive a Mack truck through them. In the course of discussions that will follow second reading of this legislation we will be introducing some amendments to it. We will try to improve the Bill. In particular, we will try to guarantee what we consider to be the primordial role of the federal Government, which is, at the very least, to protect working men and women who are exposed to second-hand smoke on a daily basis in the workplace.
We are not satisfied with the regulations the Government has introduced which deal with federal civil servants and which, in fact, exempt Parliament and thus our own employees. We are not satisfied with that approach. We will be introducing some amendments. On the whole we will come out with a better Bill.
For the Minister to achieve the objectives he is seeking, and I believe he is intent on achieving them, the Bill has to be strengthened. The Bill has to be more precise. The loopholes must be closed. Above all, the Bill has to protect people in the workplace. It cannot deal only with the issue of advertising. Unfortunately, Bill C-51 simply deals with the advertising
Tobacco Products
issue. A curb on advertising will assist in reducing consumption in a long-term strategy. It will not provide people with the protection in the short term that they need to be free from exposure to smoke in the workplace.
The study that the office of the Minister released today on second-hand smoke is damning enough evidence that Canadians should have the right to work in a smoke-free workplace, whether or not they happen to be federal government employees, working in Parliament or in the private sector on the federal or provincial scene. Those are the areas which we intend to explore in our further discussions on Bill C-51.


Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, I congratulate the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) for finally bringing in Bill C-51 for debate today. It is an important step forward for protecting the health of Canadians. I am glad to see the strong stand that the Liberal critic for health has taken in her demand for a comprehensive approach to this question of the very serious numbers of deaths and diseases that are caused by tobacco smoking. The statistics are painful enough.
More than 35,000 Canadians who are smokers die every year from tobacco related diseases. Some 300 to 500 nonsmokers who are involuntary smokers die from tobacco-related diseases, for example, lung cancer and probably other diseases. A number of still births and perinatal defects occur as a result of tobacco-smoking on the part of the mother and, indeed, even from secondary smoke that affects the pregnant mother. These deaths are numbered in the hundreds. Fires are caused by the misuse of cigarettes. The deaths caused by fire are in the area of 200 to 400. This is indeed a very serious problem and I am happy to see this legislation before us today.
Bill C-51 would ban advertising of tobacco, cigarettes and sponsorships. However, there are a couple of loopholes. I also welcome the parts of the Bill that deal with labelling which are very important. They are a good step forward in dealing with this question and a matter not dealt with in my own Bill, Bill C-204. We are indeed breaking new ground.
I want to call to the attention of the Minister the need to plug a couple of loopholes with respect to advertising and sponsorship. The first loophole in the Bill is with respect to the point of sale advertising, for example, in local stores. This is where young children are purchasing their cigarettes. Local stores are bribed by the tobacco companies to have advertisements in their stores. Point of sale advertising must be completely banned and not left merely to regulation.
The other loophole is with respect to the partial ban on sponsorships. A brand name cannot be used but a company name can be used for sponsorships under this legislation. This is something which would not be permitted if Bill C-204 were enacted. It takes but a bit of imagination to consider that the tobacco companies could be incorporating new companies to make a company out of a brand name and thus escape the spirit and the letter of this law. We would like to see those

November 23, 1987
Tobacco Products
loopholes plugged. We know why the tobacco companies have to advertise. It is because some 35,000 Canadians a year are dying. They are smokers, the customers of these companies. Some 350,000 smokers, largely intelligent adult men, are quitting smoking. The tobacco companies have to replace their customers. They are doing this by looking for new markets. We know that they are going after children. That has been all too well documented. We also know that they are going after women. I am sorry to say that they have been enormously successful in their advertising directed at women. The women's movement is speaking up and talking back to the tobacco companies on that point. The symbols of emancipation are being used. Glamour, success and peer acceptance are being used to attract people to smoking.
One of the sneakier methods that has been attempted by a tobacco company to attract women smokers is worth citing here. I refer to a plan which, fortunately, has been scotched. Benson & Hedges wanted to put out a book on political women. My understanding is that this book would be sent to all the schools in Canada. It was a very clever idea. I was asked if I would give my permission to be included in this book. Other Hon. Members who are women were also asked to be included in the book. I am sorry to say that some of them fell for it. A woman member of the public was concerned about this matter and she sent a letter to the President of Benson & Hedges to protest. She wrote as follows:
I am very disturbed by your plan to publish a book on women in politics. I am convinced that this will have the effect of identifying successful women, women who are role models for other women-mainly younger women-with smoking, since 1 am well aware that the tobacco industry in North America has capitalized on the movement for women's liberation in an attempt to persuade feminists that smoking is the necessary corollary of success in the male-dominated world of politics, business and sport.
That was a very reasonable protest. In fact, it was very timely. Benson & Hedges replied to this public-spirited citizen in a letter which stated:
1 am in receipt of your letter-
First, let me say that I consider it rather presumptuous on your part to complain about something which is based, at best, on second or third hand information.
Inasmuch as you appear to have a Ph. D., I would have thought that irrespective of the discipline in which it was obtained, you would check your facts before committing yourself to paper.
Check the facts indeed. I have some of the facts here with me. One is a letter to myself inviting me to be one of these successful role models and to be included in a book on political women. The Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) was probably one of these women. Her name and face would go out to those young teenagers to encourage them.
We want to encourage young women to enter politics-of course we do. But do we want to sell them cigarettes at the same time? This is shameful. It is a good example of the tactics of this industry. It is going after young women in order to replace the intelligent older men who are quitting smoking. Fortunately, there was enough bad publicity on this matter
that the company apparently produced the book but did not distribute it.
Advertisers want to tell us that advertising of cigarettes does not work and that they are only interested in maintaining their brand name quota within the system. They have quoted some phoney statistics. They have tried to say in Norway, Finland and Singapore in full-page advertisements in newspapers this summer that ad bans in other countries have not been successful and that it would be counterproductive for us to go for an ad ban. The Canadian Cancer Society subsequently checked out all these so-called facts only to find that the situation was quite the opposite.
For example, in Norway, and the Minister has referred to this example, since the ban on advertising there has been a 15 per cent decline in the number of smokers. Yet exactly the opposite was claimed by the tobacco companies and the advertisers. It is very shameful that Canadians are being misled. They may not be too misled on this, because it is a little preposterous for the advertisers themselves. They have been coming to committee on my Bill C-204 and stating that advertising does not work, undermining their own industry. 1 think that advertising does work, and it should be part of the solution. We should have a counter-advertising program in order to encourage young people not to start, and to encourage those people who have already started to quit.
There has been a very dishonest use of so-called data. In the case of Norway, the clever trick was that it did not use ordinary tobacco made for roll-your-own cigarettes, and they included only one form of cigarette use which had gone up since the ban. But the total use had gone down. It also did not take into account the fact that there had been a population increase. It was not done per capita. So there was a very dishonest use of statistics in order to make their point.
The advertisers also tell us that it is not advertising that makes young people smoke, it is peer pressure. They actually did a study and asked children, "Are you influenced by advertising?" Human nature tell us that none of us likes to admit that we are influenced in a decision by advertising. We like to think that we made up our own mind. Quite naturally, most children stated that they had not been influenced by advertising, but some stated that they had been.
Even if it is a very small number, I suggest that one person dying from a tobacco related disease, from a habit that he or she would not otherwise have taken up, is too many. Thirty-five thousand Canadians die a year, and if only 5 per cent of those people started as a result of advertising, that is a sizable number. Even if it is only 1 per cent, that is 350 people. If it is 2 per cent, it is 700 people, and that is almost the murder toll in Canada. If anyone could find some brilliant way to reduce murder by 700 people a year, we would be very grateful to bring those numbers down.
November 23, 1987

Even if it is only 2 per cent and the advertisers are correct, and I do not think they are-but even if we accept their statistics, we should be pleased at the prospect that we could save 700 lives a year. I feel we will be able to save far more than 700. I feel there will be thousands and thousands saved, as this Bill and other measures undertaken begin to attack the consumption of tobacco.
We have been told by various people who oppose this Bill, and who oppose my Bill, that there are other measures that can be taken. Instead of legislation there should be a voluntary code. A voluntary code has been in operation for tobacco manufacturers. As the Minister himself pointed out, virtually every rule has been ignored and violated, time after time. I wish to cite a few concrete examples of how the tobacco industry violates its own code that is presently in operation. How could we have any confidence that they will reform and be different in the future?
The first rule states that there will be no cigarette or cigarette tobacco advertising on radio or television, nor will such media be used for the promotion of sponsorships of sports or other popular events. We all know that the tobacco companies buy advertising at sports events that are televised, so that their names and logos will appear. We know that they sponsor teams and require that their logos are on the sporting equipment and uniforms so that when the event is televised their name will get around, in this way getting around the fact that they cannot advertise directly on television. This is a very flagrant example of the abuse of their own code.
The second rule states that the industry will limit total cigarette and cigarette tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship expenditures for any year to 1971 levels, and that they will be increased only to compensate for cost increases or decreases-in short, the cost of living. Have they kept their word on this? We do not know exactly, because they will not release the data. I am a little suspicious on this one. If they had kept their word, why would they not release the data to prove it?
The sixth rule states that all advertising will be in conformity with the Canadian code of advertising standards as issued by the Advertising Standards Council. If this rule were obeyed, we would not have any advertising at all. The rule states that advertisements shall not display a disregard for public safety, or depict situations which might encourage inappropriate, unsafe, or dangerous practices. What could be more unsafe or dangerous than smoking itself? Thirty-five thousand Canadians are dying from it. This is far worse that any of the other types of activities.
I raised this at committee with advertisers. They stated that what they had in mind was boating accidents; we do not wish a boat shown in a billboard and not have the person wearing a life-jacket because that would encourage people to run out and get into a boat without a life-jacket and have a boating accident. These are the people who tell us that their advertisements for cigarettes never encourage anyone to smoke, but
Tobacco Products
somehow a boating commercial which showed someone doing something unsafe would suddenly encourage Canadians by the thousands to go out and have boating accidents. What nonsense.
The seventh rule states that cigarette or cigarette tobacco advertising will be addressed to adults 18 years of age or over, and will be directed solely to the increase of cigarette brand shares. I have never seen an advertisement that said, "We discourage you from smoking because it is very unhealthy, but if you are continuing to smoke anyway, try our brand". It does not happen that way. It is supposed to be addressed to adults 18 years or over.
It is very difficult to see a grocery or confectionery store without tobacco advertising that is located in an ordinary neighbourhood where there are families living and children going to those stores. There are bill boards all over. There are lots of bill boards on the Gardiner Expressway. They are lighted up and one cannot even read the health warning on those bill boards. They are all over the place. Canada's Wonderland has tobacco advertising. That is a place for children. Children thumb through magazines, although they may not be the subscribers, and they see tobacco advertisements there. The main drag in my riding, down Fourth Avenue, is a commercial street. Children use commercial streets. They go to stores. Fifty feet away from the street itself is a residential area. Yet there are massive bill boards advertising to children living in those neighbourhoods.
The eighth states that no advertising will state or imply that smoking the brand advertised promotes physical health, or that smoking a particular brand is better for health than smoking any other, or is essential to romance, prominent success, or personal advancement. This is the so-called "life-style" advertising. Tobacco advertisements are largely of this nature. Of course, there were the famous tropical fish advertisements that suggested that smoking is very good for tropical fish. Otherwise, they try to convince us that smoking is good for white water canoeing, kayaking, hang-gliding, exercising, dancing, and doing all those types of things. The example I just mentioned of Benson & Hedges wishing to associate cigarette smoking with successful woman in politics is absolutely contrary to their own code of advertising. It is a voluntary, useless code.
The thirteenth rule states that the warning will be prominently displayed. Of course, the warning on cigarette advertising is not prominently displayed. One can hardly read it, and it is a weak warning at that.
The tobacco manufacturers and advertisers tell us that we cannot ban advertising because it is a legal product. Advertising is limited for many legal products. Tobacco would not have been a legal product if we had had any idea of the harmful consequences when tobacco smoking began to become popular in Canada some years ago. It simply would not have happened. If we buy this argument, what it says is that once a mistake is made and a product becomes a legal product then you cannot

November 23, 1987
Tobacco Products
get rid of it. If it is a legal product or if it is an addictive product, it is not realistic to ban a product that is used by 6 million or 7 million Canadians.
Its use can be discouraged, and people who do not wish to smoke can be protected from being involuntary smokers. There are many things that can be done. The price can be raised to make it more difficult for kids to buy cigarettes. That should be done. Measures can be encouraged for farmers to get out of tobacco crops and to get into healthy, wholesome crops. That should be done. We should help farmers and their communities make the adjustments. There are many things that we can do. But to say that we cannot undo a mistake of the past is foolish, immoral, and there is no legal basis for doing that. We have a responsibility to act in respect to Canada's number one preventable health problem.
Another thing stated by the advertisers and tobacco companies is that if sports and arts sponsorships are banned, arts and sports will suffer. They make themselves out to be major contributors to this very important sector of national life. I want to spend a little time on this, because it is one of the more shameless misinformation campaigns we have seen. I want to deal particularly with sponsorship of the arts.
How much is it, for one thing? The companies would like us to believe that millions and millions of dollars are going into the arts, that they are the Canada council of the arts. Far from it; they are not remotely close to the CBC or the Canada Council in the amount of money they give to the arts. We are not even sure how much it is.
A couple of weeks ago, at a public meeting in Toronto, a representative of tobacco companies said that $20 million went to arts and sports. Nonsense, it is not $20 million. The Council on Business and the Arts indicated that it was $10 million to the arts alone. It is not $10 million to the arts alone. The full-page ads taken out by tobacco companies last summer indicated that $10 million went to culture and sports together.
Let us examine that $10 million figure. For one thing it is tax deductible money, and tobacco companies are paying tax at the rate of 35 per cent. Thus, 35 per cent of that money is our money. If it is $10 million, then $3.5 million of it is our tax money because we forgave it or reduced their tax bill. They are spending $3.5 million of our money.
How are they spending it in sports and the arts? Imperial Tobacco is the largest donor to the arts. It claims that for last year it spent $1.54 million on the arts. If we reduce that by the 35 per cent which was our money and not the company's, we are getting the sum down. If we look at how it is spent, the money goes down further. According to the Council on Business and the Arts, roughly half the money which goes to the arts is in the form of a gift, meaning that a ballet company can buy music, can pay choreographers, or can pay dancers. Half the money is not a gift at all; they do not even see the money. It goes for so-called services.
What are the services? They are not ballet slippers, music, or choreography. They are receptions at which the tobacco company's name is advertised. They are advertisements in newspapers of the ballet company with the logo of the tobacco company. It is a chance for the tobacco company to advertise its name without even the farce of that mild health warning. It is a chance to advertise cigarettes.
They have launched a campaign to convince people that they are spending a lot of money. I had a piece of work done through the Library of Parliament research services to try to find out exactly how much money they were spending on the arts or how much they were giving, and how much was involved in deals where they get advertising for it, in both cases tax deductible. So far these questions have not been answered. We are still awaiting precise information. However, it is very clear that it is not $20 million or $10 million. We are getting the numbers down in the case of the arts. It is well under $1 million for the arts. We are getting down to about $500,000 in contributions to the arts.
If they did not have this tax deduction, and if we did not allow this advertising and sponsorship, the Government would be collecting this money. It could be given to the Canada Council or to the arts directly or, in the case of sports, to sports organizations. That would be a far better use. I suggest very seriously that by permitting advertising and sponsorship in the arts and sports we are actually depriving these communities of better support. We should be giving them real money with which they can do what they want, instead of forcing them into providing services which effectively advertise tobacco companies far more than they help them in their own activities.
In order to convince people that tobacco companies are great patrons of the arts and promoters of sports, the companies undertook a massive campaign last summer. There were full-page ads everywhere at an estimated cost of $4 million, incidentally $4 million which was tax deductible. We are paying some of this money. We paid for more than $1 million of it. The irony is that taxpayers' money has been used more to try to convince Canadians that tobacco companies are promoters of arts and sports than in health promotion campaigns. That amount of money is more than the Minister of National Health and Welfare is paying for programs to discourage people from smoking. It is our money. Our taxpayers' money is being used to try to convince Canadians that we need arts and sports sponsorships when we surely do not need them and do not get value for our money.
I am pleased to see that the sports community is fighting back. I am pleased to see the leadership of athletes and of Physicians for a Smoke-free Canada, and the initiative taken by that group and others to have a smoke-free Olympics this year is a breakthrough. It is important and most desirable.
I was also very pleased to see that artists would not fall for this baloney on the part of tobacco companies, that they were the great patrons of the arts. Artists themselves, in cooperation with the Non-Smokers' Rights Association, have
November 23, 1987

taken out ads saying that they want a ban on advertising and sponsorship because they believe that children need a chance. They do not want to see children encouraged of to take up this dangerous product. I am glad to see that responsible attitude being taken by our friends in the arts and our friends in sports.
It has been suggested that if we ban this advertising it will only apply to Canada in that we get much of our advertising from the United States. It has also been suggested that Canadians will simply switch to the American brands advertised in American magazines. It is true, if the Americans do not ban that advertising this will happen in the case of magazine advertising. However, I suggest that there is no tobacco advertising on television or radio either in the States or in Canada, and that billboard advertising is only relevant for our country. Therefore the only area in which this is a problem is magazine advertising.
It so happens that roughly 60 per cent of tobacco advertising in magazines is of American cigarettes right now, but American cigarettes only account for about 1 per cent of the market. It is strange, is it not, that Canadians do not seem to want to smoke American cigarettes? We do not have any real reason to fear that there will be a massive switch to American cigarettes if we take the correct step and ban tobacco advertising and the Americans are slow.
Incidentally many Americans want their country to take this step as well. There are people in Congress who are working for ad bans. The United States is ahead of us in terms of a smoke-free workplace. They are ahead of us in some measures. Let us not give up on the Americans. Instead, let us lobby them to bring in parallel legislation which would be in the interests of all people who read magazines.
Members of the House have been subjected to quite a clever campaign on the part of the tobacco industry to convince them to vote against Bill C-51, and I guess indirectly against my Bill C-204. All Hon. Members will have received a large number of letters supposedly from constituents expressing their concerns-and perhaps Hon. Members have received some very genuine letters from constituents-which they should be aware were part of a strategy. It has been estimated that it cost $30 to get each letter to us.
What happened is that the public relations company managing the campaign sent out information to people it thought might respond. I am glad to say that only 10 per cent of them responded and that 90 per cent did not. They were given three follow-up telephone calls to encourage them to send in their letters.
1 will read a sample letter which was addressed to me: "You have succeeded in finding a symptom but have completely missed the issue". Then it talks about not wanting it to be illegal to advertise. These letters never mentioned health. They talked about freedom of speech. They were very high-minded about the Charter of Rights.
Tobacco Products
However, it is most interesting to look at the fine print. These are phoney letters, and people must understand that. How do we identify between a phoney letter and a genuine letter from a constituent? How do we distinguish the ones which came in from this campaign? They were all typewritten because the public relations company prepared the letters and the persons to which they were sent only had to sign them. There was no letterhead and they were not on their own stationery. Many of them were from small business people who have stationery. The same thing holds for the envelopes. They were matching envelopes, and different coloured stationery was used. It has the individual's name, the MP's name. It is Dear Mr. so and so or Dear Madam so and so. The letters are here but they are not on the letterhead of the company. Of course not. It was not the people in the company who wrote the letters, it was a public relations company that wrote letters to you, Hon. Members and to you, Madam Speaker. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have been flooded with phony letters purporting to be genuine letters of concern from constituents. Instead, this is a well heeled campaign on the part of the tobacco industry.
In case you are not sure about it, Madam Speaker, some of the letters are on white paper, some are on beige paper, some are on cream paper and some are on turquoise paper. None of them mention health, death, emphysema, heart disease, hospitalization or any of these assorted effects of tobacco use. Another hint that the letters are phony, beyond the fact that there is no letterhead, they are blocked to the left. Most Canadians when writing letters indent each paragraph. Some people do not, but it is very common. If you have 100 letters in your office with no letterhead, a matching envelope, the address typed out and blocked to the left, you can be very sure you have been a victim of a big hoax.
Some people who received these letters, that is your constituents and mine, have written back with little comments. They sent the letter back and signed it. One constituent says "I am completely opposed to this letter and urge you to support the ban on tobacco advertising". I am pleased to see that. I have another one from a constituent who has written across it "nonsense". The individual added a P.S. It says "Ms. McDonald, I support the banning of cigarette advertising even though I derive some benefit from it via my work in the theatre". Here is a public spirited person who can distinguish from his own benefit and the need to have controls. He also enclosed the letter he had received from the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers Council, the perpetrator of this hoax.
The letter is to him and it says "In the postalgram we advised that you would receive a comprehensive information kit on this critical issue. You now have the kit in your hands. As you will note, it contains a letter and a stamped preaddressed envelope directed to your Member of Parliament. We urge you to sign and send the letter right away. Remember this damaging legislation could be passed into law soon.

November 23, 1987
Tobacco Products
Damaging, absolutely". It goes on and on in a tirade against the legislation.
But here we have a public spirited constituent who exposed this phoney hoax for what it is, as I am pleased to see a lot of people have done. Apparently 90 per cent of the people who were approached refused to go along with it. We should not be surprised about that, because we know that a strong majority of Canadians support a ban on advertising, and who support the other important measures which the House has considered and let us hope will continue to consider.
So much for the hoax and letters and envelopes. These are not genuine letters of concern from your constituents, Madam Speaker.
The measure before us now to ban advertising and sponsorship is important, but it has to be part of a comprehensive package. It alone will not really make a dent in tobacco smoking. We cannot have a proper education program for children so long as we allow advertising. Children do not believe the education program. They go into the classroom and the teacher tells them something about smoking, and then they go to the corner store to buy candy and there is a big cigarette ad. Children themselves say that if advertising is allowed, the Government must think it is all right. The fact that advertising is allowed says to people that it is not so serious that it should be banned. It is absolutely vital in order to have an education program that cigarette advertising be banned. That alone though will not do everything that we want to have done.
Recommendations have been made by many organizations. Let me cite one of the best, from the Non-Smokers' Rights Associations, list of measures that we ought to be considering as complementary to the ban on advertising and promotion. Amendments to Bill C-51 are recommended as follows. The Bill must terminate tobacco marketing to minors, a very large market of which we are aware. Features from Bill C-204 must be added to Bill C-51 to protect non-smokers from environmental tobacco smoke exposure in federally regulated workplaces and transportation. I will address a few words to that. Under existing Canadian tort law, tobacco manufacturers are required to give their customers detailed warnings with respect to the nature and extent of the risks. Some further points along that. There must be an immediate ban on spitting tobacco, so-called smokeless tobacco, an important measure that could be easily handled. It should be handled now before this habit becomes more prevalent and before we are in the same situation as we are with tobacco because it is hard to ban something that is widespread. The ban on the promotion of tobacco must include the industry practice of providing payments to retailers to feature tobacco products at the checkout counters.
That is why I think my Bill C-204 is a bit stronger in this respect. It is very clear that there should be no advertising whatsoever. It does not allow the loophole of point of sale advertising. We need measures at the workplace.
Treasury Board has by regulation introduced a number of measures, and we are pleased to see them. I look forward to the House of Commons, the Senate and the Library bringing in no smoking measures as well, but we do not have them yet, only partial measures.
Before a committee on Bill C-204, Labour Canada made it very clear that there would be exceptions to the no smoking rule. In places, for example, where federal employees share office space with the private sector, a provincial body, or somebody else, there would be no requirement for a smoke free workplace. Labour Canada did not know how many people would be exempted from the regulation but we suspect it is a very large number.
It is quite clear that the regulations the Government has introduced do not include the Armed Forces, the RCMP or Crown corporations. Several Ministers have said that they hope these other bodies will bring in regulations, but so far they have not. They have brought in only partial measures.
We need much clearer measures and full protection for the public as well as for employees. Regulation may not be adequate. We asked for legal opinions on that at committee. Is the Government sure that legislation will not be needed and that regulation will be adequate? We just do not know at this point.
It would be important in my view to meld Bill C-204 and C-51 so that we can deal with all of these aspects, the labelling which is contained only in Bill C-51, the smoke-free workplace, which is contained only in Bill C-204 and the advertising which is in both. We need to bring these measures together and come back with two Bills which cover the subject as adequately as possible. Let us hope the Minister will bring in other Bills and the related measures to which I have referred.

Addiction to smoking has taken epidemic proportions and we need a comprehensive program to fight it, to fight the mortality rate, to fight increasing tobacco use by youths, teenagers and even children. A total ban on sales to minors and children is what we need. We now have this legislation. Sanctions must be stricter, and this legislation which in practice has not been enforced must be effectively applied. Smokeless tobacco must be banned. We must have higher taxes as a means to discourage children, youngsters and teenagers from smoking. We need measures to encourage tobacco growers to switch to other health-promoting agricultural products. We must protect the workplace, we must protect the public.
Madam Speaker, we need a whole series of measures to fight smoking addiction in Canada.

I can see that it is one o'clock, Madam Speaker. 1 believe I have a couple of minutes left, presumably after Question Period.
November 23, 1987


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock later this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, it has now been a year since Canada Post management set up their new corporate plan. The minute this plan was launched several hundreds of thousands of Canadians demonstrated against the installation of superboxes which, as we all recall, could not be closed and would open by themselves.
On a number of occasions several hundred municipalities passed resolutions urging Canada Post not to implement the new action plan. Even the Canadian Federation of Municipalities adopted a resolution asking Canada Post officials not to close rural post offices.
Mr. Speaker, last week a Montreal court did forbid Canada Post to install these famous superboxes on city property. How many more Canadians and how many more institutions must speak out against this ill-conceived corporate plan, Mr. Speaker? How much more time will it take this Government to realize that this plan is not good for Canadians and that priority ought to be given to restoring home mail delivery, providing equitable postal services, and keeping small rural post offices open because they are important to Canadian society?
% * *


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Defence will soon award a contract for the last six of a twelve frigate construction program. Billions of dollars are at stake. Simple logic should prevail when awarding this
contract. The Department of National Defence should make sure that frigate construction expertise is developped in several locations of this great country. It should take advantage of the competition between two shipbuilding contractors in order to better control costs. Any monopoly situation would result in a price escalation much too costly to Canadian taxpayers.
The Department of National Defence should also question very seriously the representations made by the Saint John Shipbuilding Company to the effect that a frigate built outside of its own shipyards would cost an additional $79 million. That is sheer nonsense, Mr. Speaker, for the cost of a frigate expressed in 1985 dollars is $110 million. It is unthinkable that a responsible company should say this cost of $110 million would go up by $79 million as a result of a simple transfer from one shipyard to another.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, residents of northwestern British Columbia are not amused by the Conservative-inspired proposal to slash the existing CBC station at Prince Rupert from 14 persons to 2. This station opened during World War II and has provided a vital cultural and information system to the far-flung coastal and internal communities for almost half of this century.
The slashing of CBC's operational and capital budget by $85 million has sent the corporation in search of ways to meet growing demands from Prince George, Kelowna, Kamloops, Vancouver and Victoria. No doubt these areas deserve more and better CBC service. However, where are those silent B.C. Conservative MPs when it comes to providing new funds to the CBC? They are silent, that is where they are. The Treasury Board has directed that CBC not enter into any extensions of service, including to British Columbia.
The CBC plan would slash $700,000 from CFPR. That is less than one-half the cost of the Stevens inquiry, a mere 1 per cent of the cost of the penitentiary in the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) riding and less than three days worth of interest on the $1 billion the Conservatives gave away to the Reichmann brothers on the oil deal.
The priorities of the Government are backward. It is time to push big business back from the trough. Taxpayers in the Northwest want service for the tax dollars they pay, and that means maintaining local CBC radio. Save CFPR!

November 23, 1987


S. O. 21 DISASTERS EXPRESSION OF SYMPATHY TO FAMILIES OF VICTIMS OF FISHING VESSEL ACCIDENTS
Mr. Darryl L. Gray (Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my sincere condolences to the families and loved ones of the eight victims of the two tragic accidents which occurred at sea this weekend, one in the Magdalen Islands and one in Nova Scotia.

Saturday afternoon, in the Magdalene Islands, a thirty-one foot boat with five people on board was shipwrecked while crossing from Cap-aux-Meules to I'lle de l'Entree. All lives on board were lost.

In Nova Scotia, the vessel lost was from West Dover near Peggy's Cove. It was 27 feet long and had three occupants. It left port Saturday morning to check fishing nets set nearby. At 2 p.m. it was reported overdue and a search began. Winds were strong at the time. At 3 p.m. Sunday, November 22, wreckage was brought ashore and identified as being from the missing craft. The search is continuing under favourable weather conditions.
These tragic incidents serve as a grim reminder that the sea can be cruel and unforgiving. A recently released Coast Guard study into fishing vessel safety made 41 recommendations on improvements. These tragic incidents underline the need for fishermen and for all those who make use of small vessels to take the report and its recommendations very seriously and to ensure that their vessel operations are carried out in as safe a manner as possible.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, as Hon. Members know, closed beaches because of pollution are a common experience for Canadians every summer. The causes of water pollution are known and we have the technology to take remedial action. We even know the cost-about $15 billion at last count. What is missing is the political will here in Ottawa to share the costs with the provinces and municipalities.
We had hoped to find an effective approach to sewage and water in the federal water policy just tabled. Instead, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) commits himself to more research and development. By substituting study for action he takes a page from President Reagan's acid rain policy book.
In contrast, we in the Liberal Party are committed to providing the federal share required to build sewer and water systems to protect our health and environment. If the Government is, as it claims, strapped for cash, instead of planning to spend billions of dollars on nuclear submarines it could provide such funds to ensure good drinking water for Canadians and prevent the closing of beaches every summer for many years to come.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, "the future lies in knowledge-intensive industries and new technological applications .... We must compete with our brains, our ingenuity, and our creativity." These true words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) are reflected in the discussion paper entitled "Communications for the Twenty-first Century" recently published by the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald).
While pointing out that Canada has great strength in information technology and has, for 100 years, been a world leader in communications, the paper lays out the challenges of the future. These include database and software underdevelopment, slow technology application rates, and a need for expanded research. In addition, we have a fragmented and outdated regulatory system.
I recommend this excellent paper for ardent study by parliamentarians and all those with an interest in Canada's technological development.


LITERACY
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, later today the House of Commons will be debating a motion to study literacy standards and targets for Canada. I wish to draw attention, therefore, to a crisis situation now developing in schools in our metropolitan areas.
In Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver, as well as other cities, many immigrants, both adults and young people, particularly refugee children, desperately require English as a second language if they are to have any chance in our society at all. Yet both the Toronto and North York school boards are reporting that they are being swamped by immigrant children
November 23, 1987

who require specialized training in English which they cannot provide because of a shortage of funds.
Yet these immigrants are entering Canada fully in compliance with Canadian law, and will pay Canadian taxes and make their contribution to Canada if they are given sufficient opportunity.
It does no good for the federal Government to say they are the responsibility of the provinces because education is a provincial responsibility, when the Department of Employment and Immigration and the Department of the Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie) have literacy programs to help other Canadians in their workplace and in their culture.
If the federal Government takes its responsibility for immigration seriously, it will assist immigrants and refugees to upgrade their language skills by helping in the funding so they will become Canadians in name and substance as soon as possible.


EDUCATION
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that today marks the opening of College Week '87. The nation's colleges and technical institutes have again joined forces to launch their second annual Canada-wide public awareness campaign which goes through to November 29.

This week was organized by the Association of Canadian Community Colleges which, with its 125 affiliated members, is the only organization which makes it possible for colleges to agree on the major social, economic and cutural issues. Since it was established in 1972, through its constant co-ordinating efforts, the Association has helped Canadian colleges organize into a real network.

Canada's colleges and technical institutes are a national resource of the highest significance. The clear conclusion that emerged from the recent forum in Saskatoon is that all the key players in higher education, including federal and provincial Governments, must work closely together if we are to survive in a world of increasing competition. I know the colleges are fully prepared to do their share to meet the many challenges ahead.


McGILL REDMEN WIN VANIER CUP-TRIBUTE TO UNDERDOG VICTORS
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East):: Mr. Speaker, I know that this will not please you, nor will it please my Leader (Mr. Turner), but I would like to congratulate the McGill Redmen for their great victory on Saturday in winning the Vanier Cup, the national championship for Canadian university football.
This greatest victory in Vanier Cup history was against a UBC team which was undefeated in two years, and against heavy odds quoted against them. During the game McGill established nine records and their great fullback, Mike Soles, won the most valuable player award. He was not alone, Mr. Speaker. He was ably supported by their aggressive offensive line, the Crazy Dogs, and their outstanding defence, the Montcalm Maulers.
In a year when Montreal lost its professional football team we are particularly proud of this fighting McGill team. It is now evident that McGill is not only number one in academics but also number one in sport.


WESTERN GRAIN STABILIZATION ACT
Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, the announcement in Regina this past week by the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds (Mr. Mayer) was good news for western Canadian farmers who are suffering from low commodity prices and very tight quotas.
Over 85 per cent of Prairie grain farmers participate in the Western Grain Stabilization Program which they fund jointly with the federal Government. The 131,000 cheques will be in the mail by early December. This will bring the total payout for the 1986-87 crop year to $ 1.398 billion.
The Minister noted that on completion of the 1986-87 final payout the stabilization fund will show a $1.5 billion deficit. This means that all of the 1986-87 payout was made under provisions of the Act which allow the fund to borrow money from the federal Government.
The federal Government recognizes the value of the protection provided to grain and oilseeds producers under the Western Grain Stabilization Program and is currently considering amendments to the Act which would improve funding and make future operations even more beneficial to farmers.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
November 23, 1987

Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, lakes in the Canadian Shield in northern Saskatchewan and Alberta, like those in Ontario, are very susceptible to acid rain because of the composition of much of the rock around those lakes and the lack of buffering materials on the bottom of them.
The increase in the processing of tar sands in northern Alberta at Fort McMurray and the Cold Lake area has meant a considerable increase in the amount of acid rain and snow being deposited across the northern part of that province and northern Saskatchewan.
Professor Hammer of the University of Saskatchewan warned us in 1980 about the short and long-term effects of this increased activity. Monitoring has shown that some lakes are already below the accepted PH level.
The Governments of Canada, Alberta, and Saskatchewan must take note of the fragility of the northern ecology and ensure that air quality standards are rigidly enforced so that sulphur and nitrogen emissions will not continue to acidify and eventually kill our northern lakes.
The time for action is now, not after the environment has been made unsuitable for much of our fish population.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-POSITION OF PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, the NDP and the Liberals have a blurred vision of Canada, if indeed they have any vision at all. These negative individuals seem to think that Canada is an island, that we can live all by ourselves without trading partners and be happy ever after.
Well, I have news for them and the leaders of some of our unions who have the same blurred eyesight. Canada is not an island. Canada is a nation, and unless we have trading partners we will wither and die.
Under an NDP program we will share each other's poverty, but under the Tories we will share an expanding prosperity.
The Tory Party believes in Canada. We believe Canadians can compete successfully with the peoples of any other part of the world. We have confidence in our people. We are not afraid that the Americans will outplay us. Rather, we will
meet the challenges that free trade will open up to us and we will welcome the vast opportunities that will bring buoyancy and new jobs to our people.
The agreement for free trade with our American neighbours can be the catalyst that will give Canada its greatest period of prosperity ever. So on with free trade!


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, the decision to terminate funding for the Richmond County Development Corporation by the Department of Employment and Immigration is a decision that is both irresponsible and grossly negligent. I cannot understand why a Government would be so insensitive to the needs of the communities in Richmond County which are desperately struggling to find viable business opportunities to enhance their own livelihood.
[DOT] (MI5)
It should be noted that community development corporations take a considerable period of time adjusting and educating the people whom they intend to serve. No community development organization is a great success on the first day. This is true of the Richmond County Development Corporation. Over the years it has been struggling to come afloat, and as of recent date it is doing extremely well.
From November 15, 1986, to August 15, 1987, the number of investments made by the Richmond County Development Corporation totalled 18, and the funds it has made available are approximately $327,700; owners' equity equals $553,000; and third party participation is over $1 million for a total project investment of $1,885 million.
I am appalled that the Government, which preached jobs, jobs, jobs in the last election, has treated this particular issue with such insensitivity.
What community development corporation will now want to go to Richmond County in order to assist individuals in that community after the way in which Richmond Community Development Corporation has been treated by the Government of Canada? The federal Government must change this regressive decision, because it is bad for the people who really count, the people of Richmond County in Nova Scotia.
November 23, 1987



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: My
question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister of Transport and the Minister of State (Transport).

In response to a question on Friday, the Minister of Transport said, as reported at page 11009 of Hansard:
I can certainly confirm that we will not sign any transportation annex that will undermine Canada's ability to protect and advance Canada's interests.
He also said:
-it is a disappointment to us that we could not persuade the U.S. to agree to change the protective provisions of the Jones Act.
Does this mean that negotiations on the maritime issues are over, or will the Government stand up and fight for our coasting industry? Will the Minister assure the House that Canada's coasting trade as laid out in Bill C-52 will be protected? Will he reintroduce this legislation before the trade agreement is signed?


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, my friend opposite has asked a number of very complex questions. I want to take note of them and we will get back to him with those details as quickly as possible.


REQUEST THAT PROVISIONS CONCERNING RAILWAY TRANSPORTATION BE WITHDRAWN
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of State (Transport) and concerns railway transportation.
In his testimony before the Standing Committee on Transport, the executive vice-president of CP Rail, Mr. Ritchie, said:
-"We sincerely believe that the more extreme measures, especially competitive line rates, should be postponed-they practically boil down to setting up a unilateral free trade system with United States." The measure would clearly benefit Americans at the expense of Canadian interests.
Considering that 57 percent of the total volume of railway transportation is exported, will the Minister do what is necessary to withdraw a measure that goes against Canada's interests?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, as a member of this Government, 1 can give the Hon. Member the assurance that when we started the free trade
Oral Questions
talks, it was always with the interests of this country in mind. Everything that will be signed, and this includes the transportation sector, will contain safeguards for Canadian interests, and that is how we intend to proceed for the transportation sector as well.


REQUEST FOR DETAILS ON COMPETITIVE LINE RATES
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister confirm that the measures I just mentioned, namely the competitive line rates, will be either postponed or withdrawn, since they definitely give Americans the kind of access to our transportation system that Canadians are not getting in the United States? Can the Minister give the House the assurance the measure will be withdrawn?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, all measures that will become effective will always be aimed at protecting the interests and the economic situation of the people we are working for.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, in Halifax today the Government of France is putting on a $1 million party for the Minister of National Defence and his entourage from Ottawa in an effort to sell a submarine. Picture if you will, Mr. Speaker, a fleet of white limousines, 25 bilingual guides, a portable movie theatre, and a 24-hour buffet with sumptuous food and drink-all you want free for 24 hours.
Does the Government not realize that today the fishermen of eastern Canada find it extremely difficult to believe that the Government has their best interests at heart when it takes part in such a Paree soiree in Halifax harbour put on by a Government whose very desire is to take away our right to fish in our own waters?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I share the Hon. Member's frustration at not being invited to the party.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: Both the British and the French were invited to Halifax to put their submarines on display. I am told that the number of visitors who will actually visit the submarines stays the same, although the British submarine which is a little larger takes more visitors at any one time.

November 23, 1987
Oral Questions
As to the menu, I am informed by the Department of National Defence:
The menu of the meals served on board these vessels is the responsibility of the Captain of each vessel. Keeping in mind the two nationalities involved, it is not surprising that the menus are different.
I am sure that when a final decision is taken by officials here in Ottawa and by the Government it will be made on the basis of the technical capabilities of the submarine, and not the quality of the cuisine.


CAPABILITY OF FRENCH SUBMARINE TO OPERATE IN ARCTIC
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, in the middle of this 24-hour buffet table that seats over 90 people is a lard sculpture to scale of the submarine. I did not say "large", although that it is. I said lard sculpture, lard as in fat. In talking about being fat for the slaughter, this particular submarine being promoted by the French cannot even operate in ice.
What is the Government of Canada doing looking at a submarine that is not ice-strengthened, that cannot operate in the north and that is not even designed to use the very torpedoes for which we have already contracted? Has the Government's judgment been submerged in French largesse? We would be better off buying the lard model. At least then we could melt it down and have fish and chips while there are enough fish to fry.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I think that the fish and chips are on the British submarine. The French submarine has Beaujolais nouveau.
Before either submarine would be purchased by the Canadian Armed Forces it would have to meet the specifications provided by the Canadian Armed Forces. They would both have to be modified to enable them to come up through Arctic ice and to operate in the Arctic environment. Both are within the technical capabilities of current design. The fact that those submarines that France now has and that are on display here are not designed for the Arctic is simply a result of the fact that France is not an Arctic power, and Canada is.


GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
A couple of weeks ago in Halifax the Prime Minister acknowledged that one of the reasons for the Government's
unpopularity has been persistence in patronage appointees to a whole variety of government boards and institutions.
At that time the Prime Minister stated that Canadians wanted the Government to do better. In fact, he stated that they wanted him "to chuck the whole system out".
Considering that we now know that a substantial majority of the members of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency have direct connections with the Conservative Party, and that on the weekend it was confirmed that seven of the eight members of the Northern Ontario Development Agency have direct connections with the Conservative Party, and in fact the eighth is a known supporter and financial contributor, is this what the Government means by doing better?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, no. As my hon. friend knows, among other things we have almost doubled the number of women and ethnocultural representatives appointed to boards, commissions, and agencies of the Government of Canada. We have proceeded with high quality appointments of representatives of other political Parties and, I think, historic numbers of partisans of other political Parties to important jobs in the decision-making process of the Government of Canada.
But most of all we never suggested that political support ought necessarily to disqualify anyone from appointment. I hope that that is not the suggestion that my hon. friend is making. That is why we, under parliamentary reform, appointed or allowed the appointment of parliamentary committees to scrutinize very carefully, and allow parliamentarians to examine the credentials of people, be they NDP, Liberal or Conservative.
The parliamentary committee system is in place, and to my regret, I must tell the Hon. Leader of the NDP, that he and his colleagues have failed to use it. If they use it and examine political appointees under the GIC system, and if there is anyone who is disqualified for reasons of competence, we will be happy to bump him or her off the list. Until that time, the parliamentary system that is in place should be used to make sure that qualified Canadians can serve Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NORTHERN ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT AGENCY-APPOINTMENTS TO BOARD
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, first, as one of my colleagues stated, we have constantly challenged appointees, where appropriate, and the appropriate committee can deal with it. The Prime Minister knows that appointing eight Conservatives on an eight-member board is nothing but total partisanship, and he understands that.


Mr. McDermid:: Where do you get your information from, Ed?


John Edward Broadbent: I wish the Prime Minister would at least cut out the hypocrisy; going down to Halifax and preaching one
November 23, 1987

thing and then coming back to Ottawa and doing a completely different thing.
Considering that the members of this Northern Ontario Development Agency on their own authority can make decisions on grants up to $250,000, does the Prime Minister not understand that by having eight of eight Conservative appointees on such a board is precisely why there are accusations of unfair decisions, and that is precisely why there is real conflict of interest and apparent conflict of interest? When will the Government smarten up?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: My friend mentions the appointment of eight members to an eight-member board. My understanding is that it is a 15-member board and contains representatives from all walks of life.


John Edward Broadbent: It is eight.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I stand to be corrected on that. We can check it out mutually.


John Edward Broadbent: It is eight.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My understanding is that the board is larger than that.
It regard to this, I suppose that apart from the fact that it is true that Leo Bernier has served Ontario and Ontario's north well as a cabinet Minister for many years-


John Horton McDermid: Nobody is more qualified.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I think that most Ontarians would agree that Leo Bernier is extremely well qualified, and there is no one more qualified to head up that particular organization.


Mr. Waddell:: He is a breathing Tory.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend states that he is a "breathing Tory". All Tories breathe.
I think that Leo Bernier is someone whom my hon. friend would wish to support. If you do not care to support him, do not go to northern Ontario.
In regard to the second appointment of Mr. Elgie, by way of illustration, he was President and General Manager of Searchmont Valley Ski Resorts Limited, he served as president of a board of the local family YMCA, as well as the board of trustees of the United Way, and he is heading the 1987 campaign for funds for the Intermediate Corporations Group of the United Way. He serves on the board of directors of the Northern Ontario Development Corporation.
The next one, Mr. Pope, is a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants and has been a member of the vestry
Oral Questions
of St. Matthew's Cathedral and the executive of the Anglican Diocese.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I will acknowledge that some of them are Conservatives.


John Edward Broadbent: Not some, all.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Many of them to be appointed are not. Surely my hon. friend will acknowledge that there are NDPers whom we appointed to great positions, such as Ian Deans, such as Stephen Lewis, such as Dennis McDermott, such as Sylvia Gold to the presidency of the National Advisory Committee on the Status of Women, to name but four or five in very powerful positions.
My hon. friend would not disqualify outstanding people like Stephen Lewis or like Ian Deans for high government appointments. Why does he insist upon disqualifying Leo Bernier?


REQUEST FOR REPLACEMENT OF APPOINTEES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said that because he has appointed one out of a hundred thousand from another Party that makes the system fair.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Miss MacDonald:: That is an exaggeration.


John Edward Broadbent: I tell him that the people of Canada understand the reality which is, in spite of getting a promise to put an end to patronage, that they have had the worst level of patronage probably in modern history from this Government-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Masse:: What are you looking for? This is a crazy approach you have.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Member will put his preamble as facts upon which the question is based, and not just argument.
[ Translation]


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised repeatedly that he would clean up the patronage system. Will he begin immediately by replacing this partisan list with one which is truly representative of the Northern Ontario community?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has just indicated how difficult it is for the Government to deal in a serious manner with a serious problem which he raises when he prefaces his question with the observation-and this is a quote-that the Government has made one NDP appointment out of a hundred thousand.

November 23, 1987
Oral Questions
That is a falsehood. It is a grotesque destruction of the truth, and it is difficult to dialogue with my hon. friend when he should be the first to acknowledge that this Government has appointed more people of NDP and Liberal persuasion, active partisans, to key roles than any other Government in history. I think that is a tribute.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Second, we have in place an important series of committees of the House of Commons whose responsibility it is to pass upon the competence of the individuals.
1 invite my hon. friend to instruct his Members of Parliament to convene that committee to deal with these and any others that we propose and, if they can be rejected on reasons of incompetence, then reject them, but stay away from the exaggeration and partisan sniping which my hon. friend has been indulging in today.


PRIME MINISTER'S APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and it also concerns the issue of ethics in government.
This weekend Canadians were made aware of the fact that all appointees to the FEDNOR DR1E agency in northern Ontario were well-known political Tories.
Can the Prime Minister tell the House if it is just a happy coincidence that Leo Bernier is a former Tory member of the Ontario Legislature, that Reginald Pope is the father of a Tory MPP, that Shawne Emery is the wife of a former Tory riding association president, that Gaston Demers is a Tory member of the Legislature, and so on?
Does the Prime Minister still believe what he said in 1983 when he uttered, "There will be jobs for Liberals and NDPers too once I have been in power for 15 years and I can't find a living, breathing Tory left to appoint"? Is he running short of Tories now? Does he have any left to appoint?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I just give you an indication, inasmuch as my hon. friend raises it, of some important appointments that have been made.
The Hon. Donald Johnston was appointed a Queen's Counsel.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Hon. Lloyd Francis was appointed Ambassador to Portugal. Pierre Genest, a very active, partisan Liberal, was appointed a director of de Havilland. Ted Johnston, a former executive assistant to Mr. Trudeau, was appointed a director of de Havilland. There was Marcel Belanger. The Hon. Jean-Jacques Blais was appointed as a member of the Security Intelligence Review Committee. Harrison McCain was appointed as a director of Petro-
Canada. There was Francis Fox, and so on. They were very important and prominent Liberals.
May I just conclude, by way of illustration, that I was honoured myself to appoint Rita Prud'homme, the sister of the Liberal Member for Saint-Denis, as a citizenship court judge. 1 was honoured because she was a person of quality, and I would be happy to do it again.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the Prime Minister that he certainly had the option. He could have said "no" to those old Tory ways.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member will confine his preamble to the facts necessary to ask the question and leave off the argument.


QUERY WHEN GOVERNMENT WILL PRESENT PUBLIC MORALITY CODE
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, in the light of all the recent controversies and scandals surrounding this Government, I would like to ask the Prime Minister when he intends to table in this House his new information kit on a public morality code which he promised in the 1986 trone speech. In addition, can he tell us whether, when he introduces this new kit on public ethics, it will contain guidelines to prevent the Prime Minister himself and the rest of the Conservatives from abusing their privileges in the future as they have been doing since forming the Government three years ago?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, the federal Government makes a great many appointments. These appointments include people from all walks of life and an impressive number of influent representatives of all political parties in Canada. Moreover, thanks to parliamentary reform, the Members of this House can now criticize and review appointments, and even, if they have solid evidence, question the competence of the individual proposed for an appointment. This is quite new and part of our parliamentary reform. If there are valid reasons to reject a candidate, this House will do so.
If the only reason for the Hon. Member to raise this issue is some link between an appointee and the NDP, the Parti Quebecois or the Quebec Liberal Party, I can tell him that it is not enough, because all citizens are entitled to play an active role in the political party of their choice without being penalized in such a democracy as ours.


REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE SCRUTINY
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister who will know that the history of the FEDNOR agency so far is that of being
November 23, 1987

consistently behind the schedule suggested in responses in the House by the Deputy Prime Minister.
First, in view of the fact that the Vice-Chairman of the Board is quoted in The Globe and Mail of Toronto as saying "we really haven't got our act together", is the Prime Minister willing to submit these appointments to the appropriate committee of Parliament? Second, would he consider, over and above the eight members of the board, creating a further seven positions for non-partisan appointments?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I find the question passing strange. All GIC appointments under the new rules are subject to committee approval, and these will be as all others.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: What committee?


John Edward Broadbent: They are not.


Robert René de Cotret: Yes, they are.


John Edward Broadbent: Can the committee turn them down?


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Can the committee say "no"? No way.


Robert René de Cotret: The committee can look into all the GIC appointments that we have been making.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: We can say "no", but you don't have to do anything.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: When we join the States we will have a better committee.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister.


Robert René de Cotret: My hon. colleague could certainly benefit from a careful reading of the rules. All the appointments are submitted to committee. The committee does not have to look at each one. The committee decides on its own which appointments it wants to look at.


David Orlikow: Can they turn it down?


Robert René de Cotret: In terms of FEDNOR, the Government did not hesitate to move in a very distinctive way to set up an agency to help a very unfavoured region of the country. They are getting their act together to reduce unemployment and economic disparities in northern Ontario, and I am very proud of them.


REQUEST FOR NATIVE REPRESENTATION ON BOARD
John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the President of the Treasury Board. How will his commitment made on October 2 in this House for native representation on the Board be met?
Oral Questions
In view of the Prime Minister's impression that there are 15 vacancies on that Board, what about appointing another seven on a non-partisan basis to represent the whole of northern Ontario?


Robert René de Cotret: Very simply, Mr. Speaker, I advised the Prime Minister that there were possibly 15 members on the board. 1 have checked. There are 12 members on the board. There are still four vacancies to be filled.
If the Hon. Member looks at the composition of the board, we have been very careful to have a balanced representation of all the interest groups from northern Ontario. In filling the last four vacancies, we will ensure that we complete that composition so that it truly reflects the social, ethnic and cultural realities of northern Ontario.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Prime Minister. First, the Prime Minister has talked about the appointment of the Hon. J. J. Blais. Is it not true the law requires that a person representing the Official Opposition be appointed on the recommendation of the Leader of the Opposition? I do not know how the Prime Minister takes credit for that.
A year ago, in March, 1986, Parliament passed a law establishing a Commission on Public Complaints, Internal Grievances and Discipline regarding the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I am told as of early this morning that nobody has been appointed to this commission and that it is non-operational.
I give the Prime Minister a chance now to show some type of deathbed repentance with respect to appointments and to inform the House when the appointments will be made. Will he assure us that these people will be representative of the community of this country at large and will not be the kinds of appointments made to the FEDNOR group?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is right in regard to Mr. Blais, and we proceeded as well, under the same statute, I believe it was, to appoint to the Privy Council as a member of this important CSIS review group, Mr. Saul Cherniak, former, I think, NDP Finance Minister from Manitoba.
My hon. friend would want me then to point out-we did not have to, if that is his argument-the appointment of Chaviva Hosek as a member of the Economic Council of

November 23, 1987
Oral Questions
Canada, who is now the Minister of Housing in the Government of Ontario, and dozens of other similar partisans. My hon. friend will acknowledge that we have done this in dozens of cases.
I hope when he has criticisms to make, as I am sure he will, that he will bear in mind the large number of appointments of active partisans of all political Parties, PQ, NDP, Liberals and Conservatives. Surely he is not trying to make the case that Miss Hosek ought to be disqualified from public service because she was appointed by a Conservative Government to the Economic Council of Canada.


Sheila Maureen Copps: She was the President of NAC.


Martin Brian Mulroney: We may even look at the Member for Hamilton East in regard to the substance raised.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Windsor West.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER APPOINT COMMISSION MEMBERS
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister again why has more than a year has gone by since Parliament established the Commission on Public Complaints, Internal Grievances and Discipline regarding the RCMP without any members of that commission being appointed to it as yet? Surely the public interest is not being served by having this commission inoperative.
Surely it should be possible to ask the Prime Minister to make appointments of people who, on their merits, are worthy of appointment. Will he give an explanation for this unacceptable omission on his part?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Indeed, the Solicitor General is moving to appoint to this sensitive position a person of impeccable credentials, Mr. Speaker.
In regard to the sensitivity and to the notion raised, this Government has had two appointments made to the Supreme Court of Canada. I do not think that the Member will find that either of those two important appointments had any association of any kind with the Conservative Party, and yet that matter received little attention. But, if one appoints an unemployment insurance commissioner in North Bay, that is good for an eight column headline.
I think my hon. friend will agree, which is why I hope the committee will sit and carefully examine these appointments, that people of great competence have been appointed, in so called political patronage appointments by the Government, from all walks of life, and when the requirement was for sensitivity, the Government responded with that. When the requirement was very much for non-partisanship of any kind in an appointment, the Government has been responsive to that, as we shall in this kind of sensitive appointment raised by my hon. friend.


QUERY WHETHER ALL FINALIZED PARTS OF CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT WILL BE PUBLISHED BEFORE FIRST MINISTERS MEET
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and concerns the resumption of negotiations this week to prepare the text of the Free Trade Agreement with the United States. Will this text be made public before the First Minister's meeting which will begin in Toronto in a few days? If not, can the Prime Minister assure us that at least all parts of the Agreement which have been finalized will be made available to the public and to the First Ministers before the beginning of the meeting this Thursday?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the comprehensive text will be published in due time after the work which has now begun is concluded.


REQUEST FOR 60-DAY EXAMINATION OF AGREEMENT
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister aware of the growing anger among Canadians at being deprived of any knowledge of the details of the free trade agreement? There are 2,000 pages of text which people have not seen yet that will have a vital effect on many industries. Is the Prime Minister aware of the anger in Vancouver where the hearings began today that only eight groups from all of British Columbia can appear before the Commons Trade Committee?
How long will Canadians actually have to look at this text? Will the Prime Minister at least guarantee that if the Congress of the United States gets 60 working days to look at the free trade agreement, the Canadian people will get 60 working days to look at the free trade agreement before it is signed and sealed by the Mulroney Government?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend refers to the growing anger. I can point to the growing satisfaction of Canadians across the country who see the free trade agreement as a tremendous opportunity for growth and prosperity.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I can tell my hon. friend that 1 have just come from Calgary, from St. John's, Newfoundland, from Arichat, Cape Breton, from Central Nova and from Manicouagan, and in all those places across the country there has been strong and growing support for free trade as an instrument of economic growth and prosperity.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Let me tell my hon. friend that if he thinks there are some deficiencies in the procedures we have adopted, in terms of arriving in the House the moment after the deal
November 23, 1987

was negotiated, inviting all Members of the House to begin a debate on it, referring the matter to a parliamentary committee, having hearings across the country-


Michael Morris Cassidy: No text yet.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -if my hon. friend thinks that this is a deficient procedure-and perhaps it is-I invite him to compare that with what took place when the previous Government negotiated the Auto Pact. It was passed without parliamentary hearings or reference to Parliament of any kind. That is the difference between a Government that genuinely believes in Parliament and in listening to Canadians, as opposed to one that did not care.


WINTER OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport. What is our Government doing to protect small businesses in Canada? I am, of course, speaking of those businesses which use Olympic or Olympia symbols in their names and are currently being investigated by the Canadian Olympic Association.
In London there are at least six companies that use Olympic in their names. Many of these Canadians have been in business for many years but they do not have the resources to fight the Canadian Olympic Association in court. Can the Minister assure the House that the super sleuths of the COA will, in future, be less zealous in "going for the gold" in their attempts to protect Olympic symbols?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, I have discussed this very serious matter with Olympic authorities over the weekend and this morning. Although I understand the need for legitimate protection of trademarks, I made known to those officials in no uncertain terms the concerns the Government has in that regard.
I expressed and requested of the Olympic Trust on behalf of Olympic authorities that a more reasonable system be put in place and that they not be as over-zealous in areas where it is not likely there will be a conflict. I am happy to report to the House and to Canadians that I have received the following assurances today.
The Olympic Trust on behalf of Olympic authorities will be concerned only with those abuses that threaten legitimate conflict with Olympic and sport related matters, not small restaurants and tuck shops, and they will not be concerned
Oral Questions
with anyone using names or trademarks prior to 1980 unless it is in direct conflict with the Olympics. No further letters, threats or lawsuits will be issued without the personal approval of the president and the legal staff, something which has not been the case up until today.
As of today, Canadians from coast to coast can begin to prepare, as the Olympic torch travels across the country, to enjoy the most successful winter games in the history of the Olympic movement.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Because of the importance of the content of the exchange, the Chair exercised particular latitude. However, there is an item under Routine Proceedings whereby Ministers who wish to make statements can make statements. Then, of course, opposition Members can respond. The Hon. Member for Papineau.


FREE TRADE
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question to the Minister of State (Transport) as she did not reply to the very simple questions asked earlier by my colleague for Westmorland-Kent.
I would like to give her an opportunity to prove that she is worthy of her pay and that she knows something about her new department.
Is she aware that a Canadian transport company cannot transport goods from one American state to another without using an American driver? Why did her Government not try to have this injustice corrected during the free trade negocia-tions?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, I have no need to justify myself or to prove that I am worthy of my pay. I was elected to the House of Commons and I believe that I do my job as well as I can.
A while ago, I told the Hon. Member opposite that the Minister of Transport had taken a position last week as concerns the agreements negotiated for the transport industry. These agreements are in the interests of Canadians, and as a responsible Government turned to the future, we have made a commitment to negotiate conditions which will provide economic advantages for all sectors of our economy, including that mentioned by the Hon. Member.

November 23, 1987
Oral Questions


UNITED STATES SUBSIDIARIES OPERATING INTRAPROVINCIALLY IN CANADA
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, for the third time today the Minister has failed to give us an answer to a very specific question. She is answering in a very broad context without answering at all the specific question that has been asked of her.
I will ask the Minister the specific question for the fourth time. I hope she knows the answer this time. Does the Minister of State know that any U.S. trucking operation that has set up a subsidiary in deregulated province here in Canada will now have the right to operate intraprovincially, while 43 U.S. states including New York, Michigan, Texas, Pennsylvania, the major one, will not allow Canadians to have the same rights?
Will the Canadian provinces be able to refuse licence applications made by U.S. truckers based in states that do not give Canadians a fair deal? It is a very specific question, yes or no.


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, I maintain that the commitment made by this Government is quite good enough. I shall certainly reply by yes or no to any question concerning transport. The agreement is a good one.
* *
*


ACID RAIN-HEALTH HAZARD QUERY
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed the Minister of National Health and Welfare who should know from studies in his own Department that there are health consequences to acid rain quite apart from any consequences to the natural environment, farms, forests and lakes. Would the Minister tell us what responsibility he feels he has, given the studies that show respiratory disease in children as a result of acid rain, for example? What responsibility does the Minister have to investigate and to respond to acid rain as a health problem for Canadians?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I would think that the Hon. Member is referring to a study that was done by the University of California Medical School. At least I take it she is referring to that study which claimed such a link.
I have not received from my officials any report of such linkage. I am neither substantiating nor denying the point she has made in her question.
We also know, as the Hon. Member will know, that acid rain as referred to in her question has various factors that we might not be able to isolate. I am not trying to dismiss the question in any way. Quite frankly, I need more evidence to be able to give a categorical answer to the very specific question she has asked.


REQUEST FOR STRICTER POLLUTION EMISSION STANDARDS
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, apart from the California studies to which the Minister has referred, studies dealing with cancer and longterm effects of acid rain, there are also short-term effects including respiratory diseases in children. I wonder if the Minister would undertake to respond to both the long-term and the short-term concerns and to reassure the House that the question of standards of emissions will be looked at from the point of view health, not just from the point of view of the natural environment. Perhaps we need tougher standards if we are to protect the health of Canadians as well as address the question of the effect on our lakes, farms and forests.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, what the Hon. Member asks is reasonable in the sense that it is incumbent upon the Department, and specifically the Health Protection Branch, to have an official position on those two points. I will take them back to the Department.
I do not have in my hand today from the Department or from Canadian officials a linkage, either short term or long term, which I can make available to her and to the public. Obviously her request is legitimate and 1 will take it back to the Department. However, I emphasize very strongly the position I took in the first half of my answer.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-FOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRY AND FARM MARKETING BOARDS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In Canada at the present time we have both a large and viable food processing industry and an effective system of farm marketing boards. With the Government's free trade agreement, one will have to go. Unless changes are made, one will be eliminated.
Why is the Government forcing this destructive dilemma on Canadians? We now have both marketing boards and food processing companies, so why should one be eliminated as a result of this bad, hasty deal?
Mr. Rossi:: There's the butler.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from
November 23, 1987

Montreal says, "There's the butler". I would much rather be the butler for this Government than the doormat for the Opposition, 1 can tell the Hon. Member that. That's for sure.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Horton McDermid: In reply to the Hon. Member's question, we disagree with that premise. The changes that are made under the free trade agreement will help the food processing industry and will also maintain our system of marketing here in Canada. The changes will allow the food processors and grocery products manufacturers to continue on the way they have been going. As a matter of fact, some of the changes that are coming in will give them many more advantages. For example, there is an increase in the quotas for chicken, eggs and so on, negotiated under this agreement, something which makes abundant sense for the food processors.


REQUEST FOR CHANGES TO AGREEMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, these concerns are not being raised only by me, but by farmers and food processors. This morning an article written by the president of Quaker Oats raised the same points I am raising here.
Food processing is a $40 billion industry employing 230,000 people. Will the Government make changes in this deal to assure the survival of both the food processing companies and marketing boards? It is your deal, make it work for both sides and not eliminate one.
John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the bottom line for the group that the Hon. Member is referring to is to abolish marketing boards. He knows that. If the Hon. Member is in favour of abolishing marketing boards, let him stand up and say so. That would be new Liberal policy and I would like to hear the Hon. Member state it.
The Hon. Member talks about the food processing industry. Ask the meat processors, the Schneiders and so on, if they are happy with this agreement. They are ecstatic about it because they can compete with the U.S. very well.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Guy Ricard (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State (Transport). Some time ago the Auditor General released his report indicating that again this year Dorval and Mirabel airports are in the red. A few years earlier the then-Minister had tabled a recovery project for both
Oral Questions
airports and was considering striking a committee to operate and control both facilities. I should like to know whether the Minister has anything new to say about this. If not, does the Minister intend to keep working along the same lines? In addition, when will we have a positive report on both Dorval and Mirabel airports?


Monique Vézina: Mr. speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question, for it enables me to bring the House up to date on this case which has been progressing at the normal rate, regardless of what some may say or write about it. After an exchange of letters with the mayor of Montreal we were able to clarify the airport council status, so I proposed that the council be run independently from Transport Canada. I am pleased to announce that the Montreal airport concertation committee has accepted my proposition. We are also about to hire or appoint a director for the airport and, next Monday, I will be meeting with the Quebec Minister to discuss the status of autoroute 13. The matter has been progressing as expected and we intend to honour the commitments we have made.


Mr. Speaker:: This will be the last question of Question Period. With the co-operation of Hon. Members, I will try to move a little faster tomorrow.
*	* V


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Agriculture. Tobacco consumption, hence production, are being reduced due to much higher taxes imposed by the Government, manufacturers importing product, and health concerns among consumers. Given that this trend is likely to continue, what has the Minister done to make the Ontario REDUX program more responsive to growers' needs? Has he initiated discussions for a Prince Edward Island type of program such as the Minister of Agriculture promised in his answer to my question on September 18? What results, if any, have been achieved thus far?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of State (Agriculture)):: If my
hon. friend has taken the time to have a look at the supplementary estimates which were tabled last week, Mr. Speaker, he is certainly aware that out of this $6.5 million allocated to the retraining of tobacco growers, a large amount will go to Ontario. In view of the fact that tobacco growers are via difficult situation, Mr. Speaker, we are making sure that this new program will meet their needs as adequately as possible. We are confronted with a difficult problem and I think that by injecting the amount indicated last week we are taking a step

November 23, 1987
Privilege-Ms. Copps
in the right direction and we will continue to get the support of the farming community in this regard.
[English)


CREATION OFTOBACCO MARKETING AGENCY-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, that particular program does nothing to assist producers to leave the industry, it simply retrains those who have already made that decision.
Can the Minister tell us what the Government's policy is regarding the creation of a national marketing agency? That was one of the first items of business that the Government embarked upon three years ago, yet nothing has come of it because it was stalled in the courts by the manufacturers. Has the Government decided to intervene in that situation, or are some of the suspicions which exist in the farming community true, namely, that no more marketing boards will be created because of the trade agreement signed with the U.S?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is well aware that even while negotiating the free trade deal, the Government has taken the necessary steps to keep the existing farm product marketing boards and to create new ones as the need arises. We are now considering this option for the potato industry . . . and as my hon. friend knows, the matter is progressing very well. We are expecting a report within the next few days.
As to the tobacco industry, I think my hon. friend referred to some matters which are currently before the courts, so that it would not be proper for me to comment any further.


PRIVILEGE
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question of privilege about some comments found at page 10964 of Hansard of November 19, 1987. You are aware that it is a violation of the Standing Orders to refer to the presence or absence of any Member. Yet, contrary to that Standing Order, the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney), because she could not find an appropriate response to a question concerning the Mulroney trade deal, made a disparaging comment-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member may very well have a question of privilege, but she is going to be taken up on a point of order if she is not very careful.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I will be careful.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member.


Sheila Maureen Copps: In responding to the absence of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) who, as the Speaker will know, has been absent and in bed with an ear infection for a number of days, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) commented:
We want Turner back.
The Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) then said:
If they can find him, Mr. Speaker.
That was a disparaging comment about the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition who, unlike the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), when he is ill and away, is prepared to say what he is suffering from.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is of course completely correct. It is not proper to refer to the presence and certainly not the absence of anyone from this place. The rule is long standing and is there for the good reason that Hon. Members have much to do outside of this Chamber. 1 have repeated this on many occasions because it is not only important that Hon. Members understand it, but important also that the watching and listening public understand it. We have had a rule for many years that it is not appropriate to do that. I will very carefully examine Hansard, and if an inappropriate comment has been made I am sure whoever made it will want to rise and withdraw it.
On the latter part of the Hon. Member's point, it would seem to me that the comments, whatever they were, were in the form of light banter. In any event, I will certainly look into the matter and report back to the Hon. Member.
*
* *


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. First, I wish to advise the House that tomorrow will be an allotted day. Second, there have been discussions among the Parties with respect to the Bill presently before the House for debate, and I think you will find that there is consent among the Parties for the following motion to be put immediately:
That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 113(2), Bill C-51, an Act to prohibit the advertising and promotion and respecting the labelling and monitoring of tobacco products, be referred, following second reading, to the legislative committee now considering Bill C-204, Non-Smokers Health Act.
November 23, 1987


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Member for Broadview- Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) could comment on behalf of her Party.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my Party, I certainly support referral of this Bill to the committee which is studying Bill C-204. I made that offer when Bill C-204 was passed. It has been understood that the same committee will study the two Bills. We have indeed organized our work to do that. This is a most appropriate motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) could assist the Chair.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker.


John B. Stewart: I would like to speak on that Bill.


Mr. Speaker:: I heard an Hon. Member say that he wishes to speak. The acceptance of the motion of the Hon. Minister of State will not in any way close off debate on the Bill.
The House has heard the terms of the motion proposed by the Hon. Minister of State. Is there agreement for that motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Epp (Provencher) that Bill C-51, an Act to prohibit the advertising and promotion and respecting the labelling and monitoring of tobacco products, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Speaker:: When the House rose at one o'clock p.m. the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) had the floor. I recognize the Hon. Member.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, earlier in my speech on Bill C-51 I exposed the hoax of the write-in campaign. The tobacco industry is spending more money to try to convince Members of Parliament and the Canadian public that they are great promoters of the arts than they actually give to the arts for artistic purposes. This is a terrific hoax and I urge Hon. Members not to be fooled by it.
In the time I have remaining I would like to refer to the economic consequences of this Bill. All kinds of scare tactics
Tobacco Products
have been raised in committee on my Bill, C-204, and generally about the economic consequences of this Bill. Let us understand clearly that when people quit smoking-and let us hope that many Canadians will quit smoking-they do not burn the money they thereby save. They spend that money on other goods and services such as entertainment, trips, food, clothes and movies. Other economic opportunities are developed by the change in taste.
The health concerns of Canadians do not mean that people will lose jobs. They mean that new jobs will be created in different industries. We should welcome this change. It would not, in any event, be justified to oppose a health measure to save the lives of in excess of 35,000 Canadians every year on the grounds that any number of jobs would be lost if we save these lives. Certainly we cannot trade dollars for lives. I hope no one would seriously suggest that. However, we do not even have to make that comparison or trade-off. There will be new jobs as people change their habits to new and, let us hope, healthier practices.
In conclusion, I very much welcome this debate on Bill C-51.1 fully support the matter going to committee. I can assure the Minister of the support of the New Democratic caucus, not only for this Bill but for a host of measures which will deal with the problem. We need a strong combination of Bills C-51 and C-204 which will deal with all the issues of advertising, sponsorship, labelling, and smoke-free workplaces and transportation. Let us make this good, strong health legislation for Canadians which we will be pleased to pass at third reading stage.


John B. Stewart: Madam Speaker, I rise as a very disappointed Conservative today due to this proposed legislation, Bill C-51. I hope that when it gets to committee and the Minister looks at it a little more closely there will be a change of heart.
I must say that I stand here as a biased person because in the real world my occupation is a wholesale distributor. In that distribution business some 68 per cent of sales are of tobacco products.
I would like to begin by giving a bit of background on this issue. It is not purely and simply a health question. We are really discussing a severe economic problem. Nearly 3,000 farm families in Ontario grow almost 90 per cent of Canada's tobacco crop. What will happen to them as a result of the Draconian measures in Bill C-51, and the worse measures in Bill C-204? Over 30,000 transient workers are employed in that industry, an additional 6,800 people work for the manufacturers, and thousands upon thousands of people work for the wholesalers and retailers.
The independent wholesale trade services some 50,000 small stores. I defy the Minister or anyone else to dispute that over 50 per cent of their sales are of tobacco and confectionery products. That is to say nothing of the advertising industry

November 23, 1987
Tobacco Products
which derives 20 per cent of its revenue from the advertising of tobacco, the purpose of which is nothing more than to switch brand loyalty. We have heard all kinds of talk about what advertising does to young people.
I have in my hand the Tobacco Advertising Bans and Consumption in 16 Countries with introduction and editing by Professor J. J. Boddewyn, Baruch College, City University of New York. This was done for the International Advertising Association in 1986 and its findings are in direct opposition to that which has been stated in this House.
Let us look at the growth in per capita cigarette consumption from 1970 to 1984 in some centrally planned economies. I do not think that there would be one word of advertising in these countries. In the U.S.S.R. there was an increase of 10 per cent, in Poland there was an increase of 14 per cent, and in Hungary there was an increase of 15 per cent. I could go on and on. However, the net increase in these countries was 16 per cent without any tobacco advertising.
More important, let us look at the annual compounded growth rate in per capita cigarette consumption since the introduction of advertising bans to 1984 in free-market economies. In Sweden there was a decrease of .7 per cent and in Norway there actually was a decrease of .5 per cent. In those countries they pay 75 per cent income tax and I do not think we want that in Canada. However, in Iceland there was an increase of .8 per cent, in Singapore there was an increase of .9 per cent, and in Finland there was an increase of 1.8 per cent. That is in direct opposition to figures which have been stated. In Thailand there was an increase of 3 per cent, in Italy there was an increase of 3 per cent, and in Taiwan there was an increase of 4 per cent.
Advertising is done strictly to change a pattern of brand loyalties. That is well documented in the industry.
Let us take a look at how hypocritical this is. The Government would like to have a market which buys the product and contributes over $4 billion in taxes to federal and provincial coffers, but does not smoke it. That is how hypocritical this whole thing is. The Government wants money but it does not want you to smoke.
Between January 1, 1980 and April 15, 1987 federal taxes increased 179 per cent. There is now 64 per cent taxation on a package of cigarettes. Ontario's taxes went up 200 per cent. The federal Government now gets 92 cents of tax from every $3 pack of 25 cigarettes. As I said, the total taxes received last year were over $4 billion.
With regard to the economic impact on the industry, in 1986 Canadians spent an estimated $6.4 billion on tobacco products. Wages and salaries in the industry totalled $267.7 million. Capital expenditures by manufacturers totalled $65.9 million. Property income taxes were $112.7 million, and transportation costs were $30.1 million.
The proposed Bill is almost a death blow to the tobacco industry. It is an insidious encroachment on freedom of
thought, belief, opinion, and expression, including freedom of the press and other media communications as guaranteed by the Charter of Rights. I did not think I would live to see the day that a Conservative Government would ever even suggest such a thing.
Statistics indicate that smoking has dropped in Canada since 1977 by 17 per cent among men and 10 per cent among women. That is not because of advertising or health reasons but because of over-taxation. Furthermore, it will continue. Within a few years we in the industry know that it will gradually disappear. However, it should never disappear as a result of removing the rights and freedoms of Canadians to make a free choice.
Any legal product for sale in this country should be free to be advertised. Canadians who are concerned about free speech should ask themselves what prompts the Government to infringe on fundamental freedoms when there are so many other solutions to the issue. Laws threatening our fundamental freedoms are unjust.
I am not suggesting that concern about smoking is not an important issue-far from it. We all realize that it is a concern, but laws must reflect tolerance and concern for justice and equity. Bill C-51 is inconsistent with these principles and Bill C-204 is worse.
Bill C-51 is also inconsistent with the Government's commitment to less government interference in our lives and is contrary to fair trade practices. In addition, it is censorship, and that is what happens in totalitarian states.
This Bill is the tip of the iceberg. What will be next, alcohol? Will we ban advertising on cars because they kill people? This is an insidious infringement on rights, and it is only the tip of the iceberg. It should be stopped now.
This legislation will affect farmers, manufacturers, retailers, advertising agencies, newspapers, magazines, outdoor advertisers and their employees. Sporting events, theatre and other artistic events sponsored by tobacco companies will be deprived of funds. For example, our Canadian Open will disappear.
Research and development will be curtailed because manufacturers will not be able to inform their consumers about improvements in product. The du Maurier clock will be gone from the shelves and the signs will be taken from the buildings. This is one of the most unjust measures I have seen.
A total ban on advertising will bring serious economic and social penalties, nothing else. People who wish to smoke will continue to do so and manufacturers will continue to produce tobacco products. I am willing to bet my next year's salary that 20 years from now there will be just as many people on the death rolls who were supposedly affected by tobacco smoking.
November 23, 1987

I want to read a couple of letters to give an idea of what the public really think. More than 50 per cent of people in the riding of Mississauga South, in answer to that Member's householder, said they were opposed to this Bill. The following letter to The Toronto Sun states:
I am a veteran who got into some heavy fighting in the western desert, particularly around Alamein and Tobruk. I don't need November 11 to remember those days or the buddies who didn't come home with me.
Yet on Remembrance Day I do stop and pay respect and remember why we were there, which was to fight for our country and our way of life-to protect the freedom of my generation and future generations.
However, this year I sat and thought not of my own buddies, but what we were fighting for and what they would think if they knew what was happening to the society they gave their lives for.
Most of the freedoms are slowly being taken away by minority groups that are always looking for one cause or another.
I am now retired, having worked hard for 50 years to make a good life for my five sons and a daughter How many freedoms they will have when they reach my age, I'm not sure. They are losing their freedom of choice with all these anti groups: Military, abortion, animal rights and many others.
This recent bill Toronto Council is trying to ram down our throats regarding smokers is going too far. Our ozone is slowly being destroyed by massive pollution. Our waters are being ruined by chemicals and toxic waste. We have thousands of tons of garbage we don't know what to do with and overworked and faulty sewage treatment plants. Diesel and gasoline fuels are spewed out daily downtown. Maybe they should spend as much time facing these major issues.
I consider myself a good citizen, a good provider and a good father. I am not a drunk, or a criminal. Yet I feel like a second-class citizen. Why? Because I smoke and will stop when and if I want to, not because a bunch of do-gooders think I should.
1 have another letter to my local paper, written by Diane Kwasniak of Scotland, Ontario. She states:
I would like to state my opinions on tobacco advertising and the tobacco issue.
There are two sides to every coin. Has it ever been proven that smoking causes cancer or any other illness? No, it has not.
Informed, fair-minded scientists admit that the mechanism of cancer is still unknown. Does Health and Welfare Canada agree with the findings of the International Cancer Conference? Information obtained concurred that over 90 per cent of smokers never develop lung cancer. As well, it was found by a consensus of scientists that a relationship between health and passive smoking cannot yet be determined. How can medical science be exact enough to state that 30,000 deaths each year are smoking-related? It is very obvious to me that scientific opinions differ on this question.
More importantly, one might ask why persons and institutions that the public expects to receive unbiased judgments from have so readily accepted such claims.
Radical groups have done their job well, both politically and through the media. In my opinion, 'the scare tactics' being used by these groups are ridiculous.
Has complete social change come about as suggested by Mr. Epp or is it being forced upon us? I think it is being forced upon us. The majority of Canadians are non-smokers. That does not mean that they do not accept what smokers claim, the right to choose to smoke with respect for others. Let us use good judgment and common sense in the tobacco issue.
What of tobacco farmers and related businesses who are being deliberately and gradually legislated out of business? All tobacco farmers have taken the direct impact of government legislation.
The pressures forced upon them have been devastating to many. Will they receive fair compensation for their losses?
Tobacco Products
Remember, tobacco is only one on a long list of suspected cancer-causing agents. Should it be singled out? Will red meat be next?
Now, the big question. Is tobacco a legal product or an illegal product? Tobacco is a legal product and therefore must be treated as such. Do we have the right to advertise legal product or do we not have the right to advertise a legal product? This is one of our basic rights. Let us not now be swayed by those claiming to be working for the good of us all.
Does our government realize that by banning tobacco advertising they are creating a dangerous precedent?
Radical groups claim this to be a 'major initiative', a first step. Is this what we, the people, actually want? I urge you to give careful thought to this issue. And, finally, I ask each of you, where do we draw the line on these issues and when do we take a stand? I say let it be now.
This Party stands for free trade and I fully support the concept of free trade. Canadians can compete with anybody. However, one cannot compete with all the international advertisers coming into this country through periodicals. Sixty-six per cent of the advertising in the tobacco industry in this country is for foreign products.
We do not see American cigarettes on the stands in the grocery stores of this nation, but Canadian cigarettes like Matinee, Export A and Rothman's. Those products are advertised well, and legally.
If cigarettes become the same price as a result of free trade we will see Marlboro country here. Cigarettes will continue to sell, regardless of the health issue. We will see the total destruction of a purely Canadian industry, aided and abetted by free trade. Do we want to destroy a Canadian industry? That is what will happen with this legislation.
The Fraser forum urges restraint. It discusses the hypocrisy of the taxation and the fact that the Government has no business acting paternalistically.
It goes on to make the same arguments that 1 have made.
A letter from the International Advertising Agency, which includes members from all over the world, states that this type of Draconian measure to prevent advertising does not happen in free countries.
It was pointed out in committee that 13 small outdoor advertisers will immediately go bankrupt if this legislation is put into effect.
In conclusion, I want to quote from Hansard of May 26, 1986, when the Minister said the following in response to a question by the Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald):
1 am saying to her very directly that if she is an expert in this field at all, and if she has looked at the effect that the banning of advertising has on reducing the number of smokers, then she will know that it is painfully few.
Those were the words of the Minister of Health on May 26, 1986, who said that the effect of a ban on advertising would be practically nil. He was right then. What made him change his mind in one year? I think it is those do-gooders about whom I spoke, a minority group, which exerted pressure without

November 23, 1987
Tobacco Products
looking at the economic realities of what we are about to do who caused this action to be taken.
The article by Stan Buda goes on to ask, "What has prompted him to produce a law that is an insidious encroachment of our freedom of thought, belief and opinion ... ?" He points out the fact, as 1 have pointed it out, that the number of smokers has dropped. His arguments are the same. He is a man in marketing who knows what this matter is all about. This is an encroachment on everyone's rights, particularly the 7 million smokers. I hope that the committee and the Minister, when he thinks about this matter again, will withdraw this nonsensical Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Are there questions or comments?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member has just delivered a very forceful speech on this subject. Can he elaborate on what action he personally is intending to take if in fact the Minister does not share and see his view?


John B. Stewart: Madam Speaker, that is the simplest question in the world to answer, and I will not make any disparaging remarks. Obviously, the Government has a huge majority. Obviously, if this Bill comes in and is not changed, it will pass. There is nothing that I as one person can do about it. All I can do is to stand on my feet, as I have, to point out the idiocy in terms of economics as opposed to health that this Bill represents. The matter does not deal with just a health question. If it were just a simple question of health, I would not be standing here. What we will be faced with is the economic reality of what will happen in Canada if Bill C-204 and Bill C-51 are passed.
I am saying that this will have an effect not only from the advertising standpoint but from the standpoint of the manufacturer and the farmer. Why are we not out selling one of the greatest tobacco products in the world to China and other countries which sell a great deal of tobacco? Instead, we throw money at the problem. We pay farmers not to grow tobacco on land that is good for nothing else.
If the Bill comes back to the House and members of the committee decide in their wisdom that they will pass this craziness, then there is nothing more I can do about it. I will tell the Hon. Member one thing. I was not about to sit in my place and see an industry destroyed by a lot of do-gooders without trying to instil a little bit of sanity in those who support this measure.


Mr. Marchi:: Madam Speaker, I too listened to the passionate words of my colleague. Why does he label these individuals as do-gooders and categorize them as a small minority when he spoke about 7 million smokers as opposed to almost 20 million people who do not smoke? Why does the Hon. Member have to belittle those individuals when he is looking for respect for some of his views? I can understand some of the emotions he has expressed on the floor of the House of Commons since they
may rightly or wrongly express the sentiments of a great many Canadians. We will not move the debate ahead if we refer to a portion of Canadian society that objects to smoking for their legitimate reasons as do-gooders and a small minority when they happen to be very conscientious Canadians on the majority side of the issue.


John B. Stewart: Madam Speaker, if I left that impression perhaps I should not have. The do-gooder expression came from a letter written by a person who referred to these people as do-gooders. I do not think it is really relevant whether or not I agree with that point of view. I respect the position of those who are against smoking, of course. I respect the opinion of the 7 million who smoke. The Hon. Member must remember that the majority of non-smokers are not the ones making the noise. They are not. I am a non-smoker but I am very tolerant of the rights of smokers. But if any smoker does something that is obnoxious to the non-smoker, then I have no sympathy for that person. But Hon. Members will find that most smokers by and large respect the rights of non-smokers.
The fact that there are more people who do not smoke than those who do does not say that those people support this Bill, as my colleague who is sitting to my left will attest to in a moment.
I am not approaching this issue on the basis of medical grounds alone. The fact is that because there has been no proven cause of cancer does not mean that I would stand here saying that smoking is good for one. This is a matter of choice. Drinking is not good for one, nor is the overeating of any amount of sugar. Driving fast on the highway is not good for a person. The 10 per cent of medical doctors who take drugs know full well the repercussions are not doing something that is good for them. But it is their right if that is what they want to do.
When we start infringing on the rights of people in a place like this, then I must ask what we are here for. We are here to protect the rights of Canadians, not to take them away.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, I have two short questions. The first is on the issue of the infringement of rights. Does the Hon. Member believe that we should be allowed to advertise, for example, sexual aids on television and in newspapers? I presume that his freedom of speech argument would allow carte blanche to the advertising of sexual aids and anything else.
My second question is this. Specifically, what steps has the Hon. Member taken, and I believe he has taken some constructive steps, with respect to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise)? For example, the Hon. Member said that the soil in the Simcoe area is not good for any other product but tobacco. I believe that there are alternate crops in the process of being developed. I am not prepared to write off Simcoe area soil as being useless for anything other than tobacco.
Could the Hon. Member enlighten us with respect to what steps he has taken concerning encouraging the Minister of
November 23, 1987

Agriculture to make cash payments specifically to farmers as well as cash payments in recognition of the financial losses that these farmers will incur as a result of this legislation?


John B. Stewart: Madam Speaker, tobacco farms are small acreage farms. The farms have a tremendous investment in them. We could not pay them enough money to make up for what their losses will be on those farms. The Elon. Member does not have to take my word for it. She can ask the tobacco farmers. She can ask the Minister. In committee we have been through this matter time and time again. If the truth were known, I think that the Minister does not support this measure. I think that anyway.
As far as tobacco itself and the acreages of farms are concerned, peanuts and other crops have been grown, but they do not work because the acreages are too small. I do not understand why we are not encouraging the export of our great Canadian tobacco and spending the money in that area instead of trying to pay off the tobacco farmer.
What about the thousands of workers in the manufacturing industry? Will they receive compensation? Will the small wholesaler receive compensation? What will be done for each small cornerstore at which a minimum of 50 per cent of their sales depend on tobacco? What will we do for them?
All we are talking about here is one small element of this matter, the farmer. I have read to Hon. Members the figures with respect to what this industry represents. This Bill involves the destruction of an industry. The Hon. Member had better have some amendments to fix this Bill up or else pull it for the good of Canada.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, could the Hon. Member give us a quick review of the economic effects of the tax increases that have occurred over the last three years? My understanding is that the industry was very nearly devastated by those increased taxes which resulted in a reduction in usage and which created extreme cut-backs to the amount of acreage seeded. The number of people employed both on farms and in the processing and distribution industries were reduced. Did that not have a much more destructive effect than the potential slow decline in the industry that everyone seems to predict will happen with the inception of a ban on advertising? In fact, there have been some people who have concluded that there may in fact be an increase in the short term in consumption until four or five years from now when young people are no longer exposed to cigarette advertising. Only then, if at all, will consumption begin to decline.
Could the Hon. Member perhaps explain to us why he did not seem to be quite so concerned about what was a very great disruption in the tobacco industry caused by high taxation, as compared to the future outlook created by no advertising?


John B. Stewart: Yes, Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member has put his finger right on it. He is absolutely correct. It is the
Tobacco Products
increase in taxation that has made the tobacco market go down. Purely and simply those taxes have been raised, and smoking has gone down in Canada as much as 17 per cent over the last five years. Although acreage has gone down and there is a decrease in sales, the taxes have gone up. Those taxes have kept the government coffers full while destroying the industry, and that is absolutely true.
It is not the health matters, it is not advertising that has depressed the consumption of tobacco in Canada, it is purely and simply the price. The price is taxation. I absolutely agree with the Hon. Member.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Madam Speaker, I wish to declare my interest with respect to this Bill. I do not smoke. I have never smoked. I am allergic to tobacco, and I hate tobacco smoke. That is my interest, and I am putting it on the table right away.
I must say that I am not one of those virtuous persons who smoked for years and then gave it up. Today there are many people who did smoke and took the bull by the horns and stopped smoking. I congratulate those people. They have shown great wisdom and virtue. I am not one of those.
But I think that I have made it clear that 1 hate people blowing poison and dirt in my face. I think that I have the right to work and live in a smoke-free environment. Unfortunately, this Bill does not legislate a smoke-free work environment for companies and firms under federal jurisdiction. I would like to see a Bill that would do that. Unfortunately, this Bill does not. If I understood correctly, the Minister will attempt to encourage firms to put in measures which will result in a smoke-free environment, but it is not done by legislation in this Bill.
I respect those people who are addicted to smoking. Even though it is harmful to their health, I suppose that they have a right to smoke. But they have a right to smoke in their own rooms, houses, cars, backyards, and fields. I do not believe that they have a right to smoke in public places where individuals must go to work, or for other types of business or public affairs. They do not have a right to poison the atmosphere that some of us have to breathe when we earn our living.
To me it is simply a question of common courtesy, good manners, and of respect one for the other. If people wish to do something that is harmful to other people, they should do it apart somewhere, where it will not hurt those who do not smoke or do not like smoke. On that point, I must register my disappointment with this Bill. I support the Bill, but I am disappointed that it did not legislate a smoke-free work environment for firms under federal jurisdiction.
With respect to the ban on advertising in the Bill, I have questions in my mind whether this legislation will be successful. I suppose we have to start somewhere, and perhaps this is a start. But when we live in a country that is spread out along the United States border and we are overwhelmed with American magazines, publications, and newspapers which are

November 23, 1987
Tobacco Products
filled with tobacco and cigarette advertising, 1 have a feeling that although we ban advertising of tobacco products in Canada, the young people for whom we are concerned will still be subject to cigarette and tobacco promotions from across the border. When all is said and done, I am not sure how many, or if fewer people will be smoking.
In any event, people say that we have to start somewhere, and I suppose that Canada will be showing a good example by banning advertising. Hopefully, it will have some impact, but that remains to be seen. In my opinion, more progress could have been taken on this important subject more directly than in this manner.
For all of those reasons, Madam Speaker, I believe that this Bill requires much examination in committee. We are prepared to vote in favour of it as soon as possible and have it sent to committee where witnesses representing the different interests can appear and put on the record the facts with respect to health, economics, the agricultural side, be cross-examined and questioned by Members of Parliament, and then perhaps there will be amendments to the Bill. If the Bill is lacking in some respect in dealing with the evil of smoking, perhaps it can be strengthened in order that we end up with less smoking and damage to our health than we have at the present time.
I simply wished to intervene to make clear my position with respect to those things. For years I could never understand how people who would object and be upset if, for example, I dumped all my snow on their walk, but they would sit in a car with me and blow their cigarette smoke in my face. For years there has been a double standard.
I was listening to my hon. friend across the way when he almost suggested, and I do not know if he meant to do so, that to smoke and to promote cigarette smoking was a basic right. We have the right to drive automobiles, but we are not allowed to drive on any side of the street. We are not allowed to endanger the rights or the health of other people. Under certain circumstances, we are allowed to use firearms-too much, in my opinion-but not in a manner that is harmful to other people. We are allowed to do a good many things, but not in a manner that is harmful to other people. Until recently, that has not been so with cigarettes. Until recently, one could enter a committee room in this Parliament and sometimes the chairman could hardly been seen for the smoke that was in the air.
Things are changing. The message is getting through to some people that this is killing them in large numbers; it is distasteful, uncomfortable, and nauseating. Let us pass this Bill, send it to committee, and come out with a better Bill.

Mir. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity this afternoon to speak on second reading of Bill C-51, a Bill the House has been waiting for a long time. The Bill had its first reading quite some time
ago. In fact, I have here a press release dated April 22, 1987, in which the Minister announced that he intended to table this Bill in the House of Commons.
Madam Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to prohibit the advertising of tobacco products. It also proposes to prohibit the use of brand names in advertising by sponsors of events involving sports, cultural or other activities, except in cases where the name of the company and the name of the tobacco product are identical.
In my opinion, we have here an element of unfairness because, for instance, a company whose name happens to be the same as that of its tobacco product will have an advantage over other companies, such as Imasco or Imperial Tobacco which have no products or merchandise bearing their names, and so some companies will have an advantage over others.
I have a problem with this particular point, and I hope that in committee, Government Members and, in fact, Members on both sides of the House will find a mechanism to make this part of the Bill more equitable than it is now.
Another point was raised by the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), namely that tobacco products advertised in American magazines would be coming into the country anyway, so that we would still have tobacco advertising.
I don't know what steps the Government intends to take to ensure this doesn't happen, because after all, Madam Speaker, if it is bad for Canadians to read Canadian advertising that encourages smoking, I believe it would be just as bad for Canadians to read American brochures or magazines containing similar information.
I hope the Government will find a way, such as income tax deductions for advertising placed outside the country or something like that, to discourage Canadian businesses from inserting this kind of advertising in American magazines, when they will no longer be allowed to do so in Canada.
If nothing is done about this, the Canadian periodicals industry will suffer as the U.S. takes up the slack and I think there is a way to strike a balance so that everyone is treated fairly.
This Bill will also prohibit the use of premiums, Madam Speaker, and it's about time. Imagine that tobacco manufacturing companies, cigarette manufaturers mainly, were giving away-I don't know if they are still doing it but they used to- small coupons which people can collect and which entitle them later to order almost anything, such as an electric kettle or whatever-I think as part of a scheme to encourage people to continue smoking. They even offered gifts which appealed to young people. For instance, when a company offered something like a bicycle, if that was not a scheme to encourage young people to smoke, I wonder what it was. I am pleased, therefore, to see this practice banned.
November 23, 1987

In my opinion, most Canadians, whether they are for or against Bill C-51, are at least in favour of eliminating this sort of premiums.
As most of Hon. Members, Madam Speaker, I received a great many letters on this issue. I have even brought some of them with me here. Many of these letters sent to Members of the House indicate their opposition to Bill C-51.
Madam Speaker, I find it rather strange that all these letters look alike. They were not only similar in appearance, but identical. We could therefore assume that they might have been prepared by some people for the signature of others, and I wonder if these people are not those involved in the tobacco industry through their travelling salesmen who go and sell in all convenience stores and commercial establishments in the various electoral ridings in Canada.
The constituency which I represent has some 42 different communities. I find it more than passing strange that the letters of protest against Bill C-51 were relatively similar if not exactly the same. They were sent by store owners in every part of my constituency. I am led to conclude that such was done in co-operation and at the urging of tobacco industry representatives.
What we are discussing today is not whether or not tobacco farmers, particularly those in Ontario, have a right to survive or a right to continue production. Of course I understand that there is also tobacco production in the Province of Quebec, in an area with which the present occupant of the chair is quite familiar. Obviously tobacco farmers have a right to continue to have profitable farming establishments and to survive. Of course we all want that as Members of the House, but let me indicate that our efforts must be directed in such a way as to find alternate crops for tobacco farmers and to find sufficient financial means to assist those same farming entities in producing something else.
I know it has been stated by others before, but let me ask this, what would be the reaction if someone were to walk into the Chamber today and present the following proposition to us as parliamentarians-they have a great new idea which will produce a product that causes cancer of the lungs and an assortment of other diseases, that creates smoke all over the place and a horrible smell, that ruins clothing and everything else, that pollutes the environment and wastes many resources, and that generally results in considerable health care costs for people who would suffer as a result of consuming the product? Would we accept the marketing of a product with those characteristics?
1 think we already know the answer to that question. If someone wanted to introduce such a product, we as parliamentarians would not accept it. Society as a whole would want us to reject a product with those characteristics.
Tobacco Products
However, it was a number of years ago that tobacco was discovered and, unfortunately, marketed. It is now widely available. We are not discussing whether or not we can place the product on the market. As I said, that is an unfortunate reality, and I say that as a reformed smoker, one who partook in the weed some years ago but gave it up in approximately 1970.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: How young were you when you started?


Don Boudria: Since then I have perhaps smoked once or twice in the mid-1970s. I hear a member of the New Democratic Party asking me just how young I was when I started smoking. I thank the Hon. Member for that inherent compliment, and I accept it.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: You owe me one.


Don Boudria: The Hon. Member is quite correct. I owe him one for that generous remark which indicated how young I still am.
However, that being said, I want to indicate to the House that I support the Bill. I would like it to proceed. I hope that it gets full and thorough consideration at committee, complete with the contributions of parties on both sides of the issue. I hope we will hear from people in the advertising industry and anyone who may be adversely affected. Notwithstanding that, I want to indicate that my purpose in requesting the input of the tobacco industry, the advertising industry and so on is not to change the mind of this House nor its Members as to the benefits of having the legislation, but rather to ensure that the legislation is fair when it is passed. In so doing, not only will it be more equitable but the law will be more beneficial to all Canadians when applied in a just and fair manner.
The tobacco industry started this and assisted many people in this campaign to defeat Bill C-51, an exercise in futility on its part but one on which it spent considerable dollars. The irony is that the dollars spent are, in large measure, tax deductible because they are seen by the authorities as being a legitimate business expense. On the other hand, volunteer organizations have been fighting this Bill with little or no resources of their own other than small contributions which they have received from individual Canadians.
It is sad when indirectly the taxpayers dollars can be used to promote a campaign which is ultimately to the detriment of the lives and health of many Canadians. However, that is another matter which we can discuss at the time we review the Estimates of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay) or in some other format, but I wanted to raise that concern of the deductibility of expenses as it pertains to the promotion of a campaign against Bill C-51.
A parallel campaign was started by some groups in Canada in response to one started by the tobacco industry. I want to

November 23, 1987
Tobacco Products
congratulate those people, particularly the volunteers who worked very hard in starting that parallel campaign, particularly those affiliated with the Canadian Cancer Society. Last Thursday I received a letter in my office signed by Mr. David Hill of the Canadian Cancer Society in which he informed me that 135 of my constituents died last year as a result of tobacco smoking. That was a statistic which I did not know about before. We all know about the evils of tobacco. But let me tell you, Madam Speaker, more than anything else, hearing that 135 of my constituents had died was enough to convince me, had I not been convinced already, that we must do everything within our power to cut down on the use of tobacco.
There are deficiencies in the Bill. We all know what they are. Others have recited them today. Federally regulated agencies and corporations will not be subject to the smoke free environment provisions even though the federal Government itself is. I am told that Parliament is not bound by the Bill. We should be an example as an institution to other agencies whether or not they are federally regulated in providing within Parliament itself a means to ensure that there is on Parliament Hill a smoke-free environment.
Members of the House will know that I supported the initiative placed before us some time ago by the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) who brought forth a private Member's Bill on curtailing the use of tobacco in the federally regulated workplace. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood for the fervour and zeal with which she defends the point of view in which she strongly believes. I am not sure that I would always have the kind of fortitude that she has when speaking on the issue and when insisting on having a smoke-free environment in groups and meetings, but I admire her for that. I wish her every success with her own Private Members' Bill.
I do not want to delay this process unduly in the House today. I want to end simply by reminding Canadians that some 35,000 people die every year from the effects of tobacco smoking. It is high time that we as a society came to grips with that. I will not even mention the millions and millions of dollars wasted in health care for a totally preventable disease nor the human suffering and so on that is associated with it.
We should adopt this Bill, perhaps with modifications and improvements at the committee stage. But we must spend more money on educating the Canadian public. One aspect particularly alarms me. Young people have vast knowledge on the evils of smoking, but a large number of them still smoke. Let me mention young women who smoke. Why do I single out young women? It seems to me that the relative percentages of young women smoking are increasing while in every other group those percentages are decreasing proportionately. Given that we know of the effects of smoking on women of childbearing age as well as all the other facts we have spoken about today, there is a definite concern in that regard. I hope the young women of Canada will seize the opportunity of availing themselves of better information, learning of those evil side
effects and hopefully will "butt out", as the expression is, as soon as possible.
It is my hope that there will be a parallel campaign by our Government to discourage young people from smoking. That can only be done with a proper educational program. Hopefully the federal Government can work together with the provinces in order to provide material to schools and provide statistics, some of them gruesome, for instance, that 135 of my constituents died from the effects of smoking, that 35,000 Canadians die every year. What about the countless numbers who are sick as a result? Our young people will be better informed so they at least will not make the same mistakes as others have before them.
[ Translation]
Having said that, Madam Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to take part in this debate this afternoon, and I dare hope that without further delay the Parliamentary Committee will make the necessary improvements to this Bill and that the House will pass it shortly, since if is long overdue.


Mr. Kindy:: Madam Speaker, what is the Hon. Member's feeling about alcohol? Would he prohibit advertisements of alcohol as well? I understand alcohol is much more dangerous than tobacco. It kills many people and creates many social problems. Would he ban advertisements of alcohol?


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, that is an interesting question. There is no such legislation before the House at the present time. However, if the Member's Government wants to propose such legislation, I will be willing to deal with it and give that my support as well in terms of advertising alcoholic beverages. The Member will know that there are certain restrictions on that right now. I do not know if some of those restrictions are still there, but for instance, there are provisions prohibiting lifestyle advertising. In other words, companies cannot promote the sale of alcoholic beverages by portraying a fast-lane lifestyle, something that had been depicted upon occasion. Alcoholic beverage companies, particularly beer manufacturers, were told to cut that out. There is still too much of it going on, however. The "Spuds MacKenzie, real party animal" advertisements are the kind of advertisements that I find totally disgusting.
The evils and side effects of alcoholism are also very serious, things with which we as a society must contend. Many other things are very serious as well, as some Hon. Members have mentioned. It is not simply a question of, since we are now banning tobacco advertising, should we not ban something else at the same time. That is not the question before us. The question before us is a very serious one and it deals with curtailing the use of tobacco by means of discouraging certain forms of advertising.
November 23, 1987

Some prohibitions like this already exist in the area of liquor advertising, but this particular legislation will go even further. Later, if the Government wishes to do so, perhaps we could deal with the same provisions for alcohol. There are differences though because the constitutional authority for the advertising and distribution of alcohol, depending on where it is, does not always lie at the federal government level, as the Hon. Member will probably know.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for London-Middlesex (Mr. Clifford)-Via Rail-Service in Windsor-London-Toronto-corridor; the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald)-Trade-Film distribution industry-Film import licensing/Book publishing industry; the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet)-Trade-Canada-United States trade agreement-Marine transportation industry/Delay alleged in proceeding with legislation/Request that Minister not sign transportation annex to agreement.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Epp (Provencher) that Bill C-51, an Act to prohibit the advertising and promotion and respecting the labelling and monitoring of tobacco products, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, I am a very strong believer in a Member representing the wishes of the majority of his or her constituents to the greatest possible degree. Throughout my legislative life, I have followed that principle.
I cannot follow the thinking of Hon. Members who think that once they are elected, they have more brains than they had before and they suddenly have the ability to tell the people what is good for them. I do not follow that thinking at all.
I was most disturbed when, during a vote taken in the House a few weeks ago, so many Members said that although their constituents wanted them to support the reinstatement of capital punishment, they did not agree. In my view, that is not
Tobacco Products
democratic. Our democracy has been set up in such a way that the Member represents to the greatest possible degree the thinking of the people who sent him or her here. Whether or not I agree with the thinking of my constituents is a matter on which I have to satisfy myself.
If I have taken a definite stand against a certain issue before an election, I do not think my constituents have the right to ask me to go against that view because I was elected on that particular premise. For instance, I am strongly opposed to abortion. Every year in Canada, 50,000 babies are murdered in the womb, and I oppose that. I do not think it is right and I do not think it is moral. When 1 stood for election, I made it very clear to my people that if elected, I would endeavour to prevent the abortion of human babies, human beings. People who would now ask me to vote in favour of abortion do not have the right to do so because I was elected with their knowledge that I would not support abortion.
I also made it very well known that I would work toward the reinstatement of capital punishment, the execution of those who deliberately plan and kill other human beings. If people ask me to support the abolition of capital punishment, I cannot do so. That is the premise upon which I was elected and that is what I believe.
If I have not made clear to my people my stand on certain items, then 1 believe it is my duty to represent the thinking of the people who sent me here to the greatest possible degree. That is the policy I will follow in connection with this Bill, even though there are many aspects of it with which I do not agree.
Of all the letters I have received on this Bill, probably three to one are in favour of it. What about the minority? I think their rights should be outlined, but I do not think that I should support the minority as long as the majority of my people want me to support the Bill. Therefore, I would like to deal with the principle of the Bill in that context.
First, Bill C-51 does not stop people from smoking. I believe we must make that clear. Those who argue that people should not smoke should realize that this Bill does not provide for that. The Bill does not stop anyone from smoking nor does it stop anyone from growing tobacco.
What does the Bill do? The Bill prohibits the advertising and promotion of tobacco products. That is the first part of the Bill but I think we must stop there and look at that.
Are we to prohibit the advertising of everything that Members of this House or members of the Government do not like? Let us look at the statistics we have heard. I accept the statistics given by the Minister and other Hon. Members because I have no way to prove otherwise. However, when they tell me that so many thousand people have died from smoking, the immediate thought that comes to my mind is, what did those people do with the rest of their time? Did they drink, did they carouse, did they stay up all hours of the night? Did they

November 23, 1987
Tobacco Products
dance from late at night until early morning? Did they drink wine to excess, did they eat to excess?
One lady in my constituency said to me one day: "I hear you are going to stop me from smoking". I said, "No, the Government will not stop you from smoking. The Bill says that there should be no advertising of it". She said: "Everything I like is either fattening, immoral or illegal". 1 said "Well, that is too bad. You must like the wrong things".
She said "I like Boston cream pie. Is that wrong?" I said "No, but if you eat Boston cream pie four or five times a day, that is wrong, but that is up to you to decide. If you want to ruin your body with sugar, fats and sweets, that is your business".
She said: "I like banana splits". Well, I like banana splits too but I do not eat them very often. I eat them perhaps once a month or once every five months because I have to make the House of Commons hockey team and I would never make it if I had banana splits every day.
How many of those people who died from smoking used drugs? 1 find it amazing when I hear all the talk against tobacco and then find that those who talk against tobacco-1 am not talking about Members of the House, I do not know whether or not they use drugs although 1 hope not-are great marijuana supporters or supporters of drugs that are even heavier and worse than marijuana.
How many of those who died from smoking did heavy work? Some of the coal miners in my constituency who smoked died because they were so anxious to be the top loaders in their mines that they worked in the smoke. They loaded coal in the smoke and they got smoke in their lungs. They got what is called in the mining industry black lung, and many of them died from black lung. They got it not because they smoke, but because they worked in the smoke created by the dynamite used in the mine.
I wish those who produce these statistics would tell me something about the other habits of the people who died from smoking. I accept the figures, but I cannot help but wonder if they also drank to excess. Did they overeat? Did they use drugs? Did they carouse to all hours of the day and night? These things have an effect on health, too.
I do not think we want to argue the point that smoking is good for you. I would not argue that for anyone, anywhere. I do not think it is. However, 1 have no right to say to my neighbour or friend or the person sitting beside me in an airplane that they have no right to smoke. If they want to smoke, fine. Many people say that people have died because of other people smoking. I take that with a grain of salt. I have been a non-smoker all my life. As I said before, I smoked only one cigarette in my life. That was the same day I kissed a girl for the first time. I never smoked a cigarette after that.
I have lived with smoking. I have been in rooms in schools where three-quarters of the teachers, particularly the women, were smoking. A Member said that more women smoke than men. I went to a drama school in Banff one year, the Banff School of Fine Arts, and out of 30 men and about 60 women, five men smoked and 45 women. As we sat in the room the atmosphere was sometimes full of smoke. I have attended legislative committees, provincially more so than federally, where three-quarters of the people were smoking. I have not died yet from that second-hand smoke. I may not like it, but I do not think it is killing me. It might if I caroused all night or drank or some of these other things too much. It could have an effect. However, I think we over-emphasize second-hand smoke.
The Bill prohibits advertising. It does not say you cannot smoke. I want to say on the record that I strongly support that part of the Bill which deals with labelling. I think every possible opportunity should be taken to let people know what smoking will do to them. Even though Churchill lived to be over 80 and smoked a cigar almost continuously, I do not think we can say that smoking cigars is good for you. I heard one man say his grandfather died from smoking at the age of 96. I do not think we can draw conclusions from that type of example.
We have a responsibility, particularly to the young, to tell people that smoking is dangerous. It is not good for them. They will not be the best athlete they could be. They will not be the best person they can be if they smoke. I am not going to say it is going to affect their brain or they will not do well in school. Many of our scientists and geniuses are smokers. We have to recognize that smoking is one item and only one item affecting a person's health.
I support every possible way of labelling tobacco products to indicate what the danger is. That is the program followed by the U.S. Whenever anyone takes out a cigarette, they see on the package, not in little tiny letters but in large letters, what it might do to their health. I support that because I think it is excellent.
The Bill also deals with monitoring. I do not know just how we are going to monitor this. When I look up the meaning of the word in the dictionary one reference is that it is supposed to give you a warning of the approach of crocodiles. I do not know whether or not that has anything to do with smoking, but I do not know exactly how the monitoring is going to take place. If it means going into our schools and telling boys and girls of the danger to health from excessive smoking, then I am all for it.
I believe the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) has a responsibility to keep people healthy. I would be most disappointed if our excellent Minister did not take a stand against smoking just as he takes a stand against drinking, certainly excessive drinking, or excessive eating, or excessive carousing. I have not heard him speak of those things, but I know he lives a very exemplary life and I
November 23, 1987

appreciate that very much. He has a duty to make sure that this legislation tries to keep people healthy.
When we come down to it, I would like to see smoking curtailed. I have never opposed increasing taxes on tobacco products for that very reason. It has had the effect of making many people quit smoking. A young man said to me just a few weeks ago that he smoked until the price became so excessive that he just gave it up. He made himself give it up because he could not afford it. It was not fair to his wife or young child, so he gave it up. That is one way of doing it. However, prohibiting advertising sticks in my gullet. That bothers me. There are so many other factors that lead to death, so many other things that are not good for your health, which we do not prohibit from being advertised.
I think advertising is somewhat of a right. It is not a total right. I remember that in the provincial legislature a few years ago I made a statement that it was wrong for the tobacco companies to show an athlete being cheered by the crowd and then lighting up a cigarette. What stood out most conspicuously was his smoking the cigarette. In the same way I opposed the kind of advertising that shows a great pilot of an aircraft getting off the plane and drinking a glass of beer or whiskey. That is not what made him great. That is wrong advertising.
I do not take a stand for total abolition of advertising. Some advertising is okay. I cannot see anything wrong with a grocery store saying it sells cigarettes and cigars. That is not going to make anyone go in and buy, and I cannot see anything wrong with it. That is part of business. In the same way I do not like people to say you have to advertise in one language. I do not agree with that. Advertising can be in any language that the vendor wants to use if it is legal in that country. I have no objection to people in my constituency advertising in Ukrainian, Russian or Lebanese. That is their right. However, this other type of advertising is questionable because it tries to make people think that you become great because you smoke or drink. That is wrong.
I congratulate the Minister if that is what he has in mind. However, I hope we do not go to the extent of telling small stores that they cannot advertise cigarettes. There are so many other things which are wrong which are allowed to be sold in grocery stores, drug stores, and cornerstores.
We are at second reading stage on this Bill. We are dealing with it in principle, and this is the time to say what we think is right and what we think is wrong with it. From here it will go to a committee. I hope that the committee gives careful thought to everything that is said during this debate. The members of that committee have the authority to change anything in this Bill that they think is not right. I believe that there are some aspects of the advertising of tobacco products that should be corrected.
I believe in the parliamentary system. We can speak for or against legislation and make suggestions. A committee of our
Tobacco Products
peers will decide what is best for Canadians as a whole, what is most in the interests of a healthy and virile Canadian people.
I look forward to having the members of that committee deal with this subject in light of all the facts so that we can be fair to those who smoke as well as to those who do not smoke and so that we do not take away rights which people of this country properly enjoy.
We have prohibited advertising in part many times and that is fine. We should prohibit advertising which makes a hero of those who smoke or drink. However, let us not try to stop the little storekeeper from saying that he sells cigarettes.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I listened attentively to the remarks of the Hon. Member. He indicated that he is in favour of labelling tobacco products with information on the ill effects of smoking. I agree with him on that point.
The Member indicated that a number of people have smoked and lived to a ripe old age. He referred to Sir Winston Churchill and another gentleman who was in his 90s when he died after having smoked for many years. We can, of course, easily remember people who live for a very long time. However, using the same logic, we would not remember very well those who died at the age of 40 of the effects of tobacco smoking. There are many people who would have had brilliant careers and whom we would have remembered had they not died prematurely as a result of smoking.
The Member says that he is against lifestyle advertising, which is one expression to describe it. He says that smoking should not be associated with an athlete or other such person. In that same vein, I am quite upset with certain lifestyle advertising which pertains to young women. We do not often see advertisements for cigarettes featuring someone with a bloated face and red eyes who is 150 pounds overweight. Young women in advertisements are always very slim and shapely. This contributes to a belief by some people that smoking helps to keep you slim. There is, therefore, a reluctance by young women to kick the smoking habit based on the erroneous, in my view, belief that it contributes to a more slender figure.
That has nothing to do with athletics or any such thing, but I consider that kind of advertising as offensive as that to which the Hon. Member has referred. The message in that advertising may be even more insidious because it is not up front but it is there. 1 am sure that the people involved in tobacco advertising are aiming their product at that market. It has obviously crossed their minds that some people would refrain from kicking the habit based on the hypothesis which I just brought forward.
The Member said that an advertisement in front of a store indicating that the store sells cigarettes does not make people buy a product. If it does not make people buy a product, what is its purpose? That is obviously a rhetorical question. We all know that the purpose of advertising is to make people buy a product. Whether the advertising is on the front of a store

November 23, 1987
Tobacco Products
indicating that it sells a particular brand or whether arts and culture is subsidized by a particular brand announcing a golf tournament, the ultimate benefit for the tobacco company is an increase in their sales.
I have some difficulty in believing that tobacco companies will continue to fund those organizations, using their names in big letters, with the expectation that no one will buy their product in return. That is a little hard to swallow.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, of course advertising is done to make products better known and to get more people to buy them. Elowever, it also has another purpose, that is, to tell what is sold in a store.
If I am going to buy cigarettes I do not want to have to go to half a dozen stores to find one that sells them. If you have no intention of buying cigarettes, a sign in a store saying that it sells cigarettes will not encourage you to smoke. In my view, that is not at all the same as picturing someone whom we consider to be a hero, such as an aircraft pilot, smoking a cigarette. In my view that is entirely different. It is suggesting that that man is a pilot because he smokes.
I believe that there is a difference between lifestyle advertising and simply an indication that something is sold in a store. It may well encourage people who want to buy cigarettes to enter the store, but I do not think it will encourage someone who wants to buy a chocolate bar to buy a package of cigarettes instead.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I have an observation rather than a question. The Minister's office has sent me a number of brochures relating to the Government's effective campaign for educating our young population through the schools. I want to thank the officials of the Minister's office who kindly sent that material to me in the last minutes.
There should be wider use of this kind of information. In addition to sending it to MPs there should be co-operation with school boards across the country. Rather than receiving one of these on my desk I would like my children and all children to receive this information at school. There is no doubt that my children will have this package of information tonight, but I would like all young people to receive the same kind of encouragement, not only to quit smoking for those who do, but not to start for those who have not yet had the unfortunate experience of partaking in the weed.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, I fully agree with the Hon. Member. I believe we should begin education at the earliest possible grade.
I recall teaching eleven grades at Churchill school just outside Drumheller. We had a health period three times a week. To my knowledge, not one student in that class smoked. I recall one of my students suggesting a way to show that it may be wrong to smoke. This student suggested that the class be shown a picture of the lungs of a non smoker, then depict
what the lungs look like after smoking for a year, and what they look like after 50 years of smoking.
I thought this was an excellent idea and said that I would obtain a picture of the lungs for the class project. I asked this student why he wanted to do this project. He told me that his father had been smoking for 50 years. His father said that it never hurt him, but his mother said that it does affect him. He wanted to show his father what it was doing to his lungs because he wanted him to live for a long time.
The pictures that this student drew were so realistic that I do not believe any youngster in that school ever smoked after seeing them. The majority of students I have met since that time do not smoke and most of them say it is due to the class project which showed the effect of smoking on lungs after 50 years. I believe it is important to provide such education in the school to the greatest possible degree. I believe that is where we will obtain the greatest results.


Mr. Gilbert Chartrand (Verdun-Saint-Paul):: Madam Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to give you some of my personal impressions on Bill C-51. I think we all tend to applaud virtue and discourage vice. Now is smoking a vice, a way to relax or a habit? I think only the user knows for sure.
I am not so sure I agree with the ban on advertising, and I have my own personal opinion in this respect. When people say that advertising is dangerous for young people, for adults and for anyone who might want to start smoking or who already smokes, 1 am not so sure people are being realistic, if we look at how young people react. I am thinking of my own experience, in fact, I have been going through this almost daily, every week.
Every time I give my assistant's little boy a ride in my car, all hell breaks loose. I smoke and he doesn't. He rolls down the window, and we have a big argument. Sometimes I get to the point where I stop the car and tell him: I have a right to smoke. If you don't like it, you can get out. And this kid is exposed to all kinds of advertising, in magazines, in newspapers and cigarette commercials. Nowadays, kids are being educated to realize that smoking may be dangerous and that smoking is bad for them. We don't even have to tell them. We don't have to explain. It is part of growing up today, and kids are being taught, and they learn very quickly, that cigarettes may be harmful.
I fail to see why we should make it even more complicated. Tobacco companies and cigarette manufactures know perfectly well that some day, measures will be taken to prevent as many people as possible from smoking, or at least enable nonsmokers to live a better life than smokers.
They are prepared to co-operate, and I know about this from Imperial Tobacco. They came to see me and said they had presented a brief to the Minister about ways of controlling their own industry. I looked at their suggestions, and I felt they were very sensible. They were imposing very strict self-
November 23, 1987

censorship, but instead of that, we get this Bill, and personally, I never heard anyone say that we absolutely needed this legislation to prevent advertising and to prevent people from smoking. As you know, cigarette companies and tobacco companies, whatever they happen to sell, are major participants in regional and local economies. They invest huge sums of money in golf tournaments, cultural events and sports activities. People say that if they advertise, they must want to sell more. JTowever, they know as well as we do, that you can show a non-smoker any cigarette brand you want, but it won't make him want to smoke.
Advertising is specifically targeted at the user. Whether you are using one brand of cigarettes or another, it will try to convince you to switch. Sometimes, the same company which manufactures different brands of cigarettes will push one to compete with another. Personally, I think this is allright. I do not see why we should stop these companies from investing in advertising campaigns to encourage people to try their different brands. I can say that I never smoked a cigarette until I was 29 years old; it was not because of advertising in magazines or on TV-it seems to me that there were no longer any TV ads then-it was not because people forced me, but simply that one day, as an adult, I decided that I wanted to try. I liked it, and I continued.
It is a fact that today, as a consumer, I am interested in advertising; they try to convince us, in a thousand ways- colour of packaging, stronger or weaker cigarettes-that one brand is superior to another. I am affected to a certain extent, but I do not feel bad about it, for as a smoker, I should be tempted to watch the ad and learn more about the product, which is not always the case.
What worries me is the kind of money that will be lost. I am concerned about this Bill because of the money which will be lost and which would have been invested in a great many community projects. For instance, when I was young, I was involved in bicycle competitions. We were in need of funds for cycling which, as a European sport, was not very well known here. We needed funds to travel to places where we could practice our sport. A funny thing is that the government of Quebec asked a cigarette manufacturing company to pay for our travel to Europe to practice our sport without having any trade name on our T-shirt, without being told that we had to promote everywhere that such and such company was sponsoring us and making it possible for us to take part in an event. At the time, there were 16 of us, all under 16 years of age, who benefited not from an advertising campaign, but at least from a service to the community.
I cannot understand why the government insists on imposing such a legislation. It is a fact that in my Verdun-Saint-Paul riding, Imperial Tobacco employees are very nervous. They are worried about losing their jobs if there is a ban on advertising. However, that is not really the problem, because the number of smokers is decreasing. On the other hand, we have to provide enough time for these companies to find a new market and for these workers to find another job instead of scaring them by simply saying that there will be no more advertising or selling of cigarettes and that there is a ban on smoking. In my region,
Tobacco Products
the industry represents 800 people, or three or four people in each family, which means 2,500 people will be directly affected, and this does not include the advertising companies.
What most concerns me is that we might be a bit too drastic in making our decisions. I smoke myself and I am not ashamed of it. At times, I find that the non-smoker is much more bothersome than the smoker because you are treated like a monster if you take out a cigarette in public places. We seem to have virtually lost the right to smoke. There is no need to ban advertising to show us that we are doing something wrong. We have only to look in the eyes of the non-smokers to realize that we are no longer wanted. For my part, I believe that we have to give a chance to the people and the companies. Canada is a free country. These people have rights, and I personally have a lot of difficulty in supporting the Bill because every company is entitled to advertise and have its presence felt on the market, whether it is a tobacco company or some other business. We could say that most people die in their own beds.
Are we going to ban beds? There are a thousand such examples. What I would ask the committee to which this Bill will be referred to do, is not to say that there will be a ban on advertising. Why should we not provide a bit more time for the workers, the advertising companies and the members of the industry to adjust? I believe that people would be much happier if they were not being told that they cannot do such or such a thing, but if they were simply given advice to follow if they want, because if people tell us that smoking will kill us, it remains our own choice. Banning cigarettes or cigarette advertising will not make me change my mind about smoking.


Alex Kindy: Madam Speaker, I have a few comments to make about the speech of the Hon. Member. I believe that he raised a very important point when he spoke about advertising. We can ask ourselves whether advertising makes people smoke more. There is no advertising for marijuana. There is no advertising for cocaine or heroin, yet a lot of people, especially young people, use these drugs. This seems to show that advertising has no direct relation with consumption. There is perhaps some link, but no direct relationship. 1 believe that what we need is information. Today, our young people smoke more than before and women smoke more than they used to because of the stress of modern life and emancipation. Women want to be equal to men and young people want to appear older than they are. I think this is why our young people smoke. It is not because someone told them that smoking is popular.
The point I wish to raise concerns the freedom of expression. Would we restrict the freedom of expression by banning advertising? I believe that this is the threat inherent in this Bill. The only thing to do is to ensure freedom of expression. It is essential in a democratic society. What I wonder is whether this Bill does not restrict freedom of expression. A self-respecting democratic society should not be afraid of freedom of expression. For instance, if people drink or eat too much, it

November 23, 1987
Tobacco Products
can certainly be as harmful as smoking. We all know that obesity causes certain problems. Overeating causes obesity and obesity causes high blood pressure, which is certainly dangerous. The only answer is to inform the public that all abuses are dangerous.
The same is true for tobacco. If the public is told that abuses are dangerous, we shall realize that most people are reasonable. We can see it right now. Many people do not smoke because they are well-informed. People also watch what they eat because they know that it is dangerous to overeat. They also know that it is bad to drink too much. Everything must be done in moderation. On the other hand, I believe that we are certainly restricting freedom of thought by passing a Bill to ban advertising. And, as I said, freedom of expression is an essential element in a democratic society.
Indeed the Hon. Member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart) had raised that point and said that freedom must be respected in a democratic society.
As a physician I would surely have seen the harmful effects of abuses-eating abuses, drinking abuses, or smoking abuses-and what people need is to lead a healthful life, exercise regularly, refrain from eating and smoking too much, sleep normal hours, and all this is bound to have an effect on our health.
Simply saying that advertising will be banned does not mean that abuses will be curbed. As I said before, some people take drugs-as a physician, for example, I saw people who reach for a cigarette when they feel nervous, but if a cigarette is not handy they will take drugs. Is it better to take drugs or to smoke? That is the question I am asking myself.
For this reason I am against the Bill as drafted because it does restrict advertising as well as individual freedom of expression, and I would suggest that what we need is information. Information can only come from one source: education, and that has to begin on school benches, as the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) put it: School is the source of information. If youngsters are told that too much smoking, eating or drinking is not good for them and that they must have healthy habits, then we will have a healthy society. That is certainly not the kind of thing the state can impose. The state can tell people smoking is harmful, have warnings printed on packages of cigarettes to the effect that it is a health hazard-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It is my duty to remind the Hon. Member that he sought the floor on questions and comments, not on debate. We have hardly two minutes left. Perhaps he might allow the Hon. Member who spoke before him to have at least one minute to respond to comments?


Alex Kindy: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As it happens we are talking about freedom of expression and I am trying to make my point by saying that it is so essential to have a debate in a democratic society.
Perhaps I should direct a question to the Hon. Member who spoke and who has a cigarette manufacturing plant in his riding, Macdonald. He told the House that roughly 800 people would be out of a job if the Bill were adopted. Naturally his personal interest is that this Bill does not become law, but he was also very eloquent when he pointed out that people in his riding support his position.
So I wonder whether he will explain to the House why this bill should not become law.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being five o'clock, I must seek the unanimous consent of the House to allow the Hon. Member to respond.
Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gilbert Chartrand: Thirty seconds simply to say that 800 workers-in fact, they are scared of losing their jobs. But this is really because of a lack of information. If the Government had taken a little more time and had not dished out this harsh Bill, I think it would have had the opportunity to plan and explain to these people that someday, whether they liked it or not, they would have to retrain for something else, because the tobacco industry is losing ground. But it should have given these people time to think things over. That is what the tobacco companies were prepared to do, but they were given no choice. For this reason, they cannot behave as good corporate citizens and must react as companies faced with a serious problem. How are they going to solve it following the adoption of Bill C-51? That is what we will see!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I was under the impression, when unanimous consent was given to proceed with a response to some of the statements that were made by the Hon. Member for Calgary East (Mr. Kindy), that there would also be ample opportunity for others Members to respond to some of the outrageous comments that he made, allegedly in the name of the medical profession. Given the time-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The period for questions and comments following the comments of the Hon. Member for Verdun-Saint-Paul (Mr. Chartrand) had expired. Nobody else had risen when the Hon. Member for Calgary East rose to ask a question. I allowed the Hon. Member to continue on.
1 thought it would only be normal for the Hon. Member to have an opportunity to answer. The time for questions or
November 23, 1987

comments is over. We should be going into Private Members' Business. 1 did ask for the House to give me advice on whether the House was ready for the question. Is there unanimous consent for the question to be put at this time?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


An Hon. Member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: There is not unanimous consent.
It being five o'clock p.m.-the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, in order to expedite matters, I would be very happy to seek unanimous consent of the House to continue the debate. That was the point that I was making with respect to the Hon. Member for Calgary East. Certainly, he made a few statements with respect to the smoking issue that are absolutely outrageous, wrong, and erroneous. I do not see why we should cut off debate just because the Hon. Member for Calgary East has had his say.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order.
I wonder if there would be unanimous consent of the House to allow my colleague, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), to make a comment to which there could be a reply, and at that point to not see the clock and allow my colleague to make a comment, which I think is appropriate, and call the question after that comment.
If there would be unanimous consent for that, I think that the wishes of the Hon. Member for Hamilton East and the wishes of the House would be met, that the Bill be sent to committee, because, after all, the committee studying Bill C-204 is considering this matter. It is hearing witnesses who would be appropriate to hear on both Bills.
I think that you might find that there is unanimous consent from the government side for my hon. colleague to make a comment and then to call the vote.


Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, I would certainly agree, and I am sure that my Party would agree to a brief comment being made in order that we can get to the vote. I agree that there were preposterous statements made, and we would like to see replies to them. However, it is more important that we get the Bill to committee.


Don Boudria: On behalf of our Party, I wish to indicate our consent to what has just been offered by the Deputy Government House Leader, and then to proceed in the manner that has been suggested.


Alex Kindy: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have some difficulty in accepting unanimous consent on this issue as it is past five o'clock. There was ample time during the
Tobacco Products
debate. If there is to be more debate, then I think that we should call it five o'clock and resume the debate tomorrow.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Before the Hon. Member for Calgary East (Mr. Kindy) rose, there seemed to be unanimous consent to allow the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) a short comment and then proceed to the question without seeing the clock, and then giving the normal time for Private Members' Business. Do I still have unanimous consent on that?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I do not have unanimous consent.
Nevertheless, I will allow the Hon. Member for Hamilton East the possibility to make a comment while the Hon. Member for Verdun-Saint-Paul (Mr. Chartrand) is here, otherwise when we do return if the Hon. Member who has made the speech is not in the House, the possibility of making a comment would then be forfeited.
While the Hon. Member is still in the House, I will allow a short comment from the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, given that there have been certain statements made in this House in the question and answer period in response to my hon. friend from Verdun which deal with the question of how the medical profession views this whole question, I wonder if the Member could advise us as to whether he is aware of the position that has been taken by the Canadian Medical Association on this issue?
Does he agree with his colleague that, if people are denied the right to smoke, which is not the intention of this Bill, they would turn to drugs? Does he agree with that assessment of the situation?


Gilbert Chartrand: Madam Speaker, I know about the representatives of the medical profession. These people have done a lot of lobbying and exerted a lot of pressure on me, if not on all Hon. Members. I met them as often as possible, whether in my riding office or here, in Ottawa, where they tried to explain that it was the best and only way to convince people not to smoke. I stick to my position about this just the same. That smokers are bound to take other drugs or do something else is not, I think, at issue here. I never had any discussions concerning this. I do not think that anybody can force people and say: Because you are smoking, you are going to use other types of drugs. Personally, I do not believe it. On the other hand, I believe that this is dangerous, because the medical profession said so. For instance, my father has stopped smoking. He was told that if he continued, he would be dead in three years. It did not stop me from smoking and I continue to smoke even today.

November 23, 1987
Education
Physicians are qualified to tell us that it is a dangerous habit. They repeat that every day, and they are doing their job. We are doing our job, and I think that Bill C-51 deals with advertising. It does not deal with the medical fact that smoking may be dangerous or not. It deals with advertising through magazines and in public places. I suggest that it is depriving a corporation of the right to advertise which any other industry enjoys.


The Acting Speaker (Mlrs. Champagne):: It being five o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   EDUCATION

[Stage Direction]
ADVISABILITY OF ESTABLISHING NATIONAL OBJECTIVES Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of establishing, through joint negotiations with the provinces, national objectives in education including, but without limiting the generality of the foregoing, quantitative medium and long-term targets for a reduction in the rate of illiteracy on both a national and a provincial basis;
That the government examine the benefits of establishing a national council on education to promote the jointly negotiated and agreed upon national objectives; and
That within the general framework of a national interest in education, the provinces be free to act as they see fit to meet these national objectives and to achieve the targeted reductions in illiteracy.
He said: Madam Speaker, the purpose of this resolution is to acknowledge, at one and the same time, the constitutional priority of the provinces and the vital responsibilities of the federal Government in the education of our adult population.
The urgent challenges which both levels of government must confront range across the entire spectrum. At one extreme, recent studies have revealed an alarmingly high rate of adult illiteracy, a handicap which condemns its victims to a helpless existence on the margins of Canadian economic life. Both the personal suffering of such individuals and the cost they represent to society demand that Governments act quickly and decisively against the problem.
At the opposite end of the spectrum, our universities have clearly arrived at a crisis in terms of their ability to produce the quality of researchers and research necessary to maintain Canada's competitiveness in the world economy. With or without freer trade with the United States, our ability to match brains with the rest of the industrialized world will ultimately determine whether we can achieve the goals of social justice and humanity which all of us want.
In between these extremes we have a system of public school, community college, and university education which, if not teetering on the brink of collapse, finds it increasingly difficult to meet our many expectations. We expect it to provide students with a bewildering array of advanced technical and social knowledge and skills. We expect it to provide equal access and a reasonable chance of success to members of traditionally disadvantaged groups. We expect it to adapt quickly to changes in the workplace and to respond to new social priorities. We expect it to do these things, however, in a context of increasing class size and deteriorating buildings, equipment, and libraries.
Although the national importance of education has been recognized at least since the end of the Second World War, the history of federal-provincial co-operation is not one in which either level of government should take pride. There is little to be gained at this stage by assessing blame. It must be recognized, however, that there remains a legacy of mutual suspicion which must be overcome if we are to meet the contemporary challenge. We in this federal Parliament have no business lecturing the provinces about their responsibilities or attempting to dictate the form of future co-operation.
However, we can and should commit our Parliament and Government of Canada to principles such as the following: moral and material support for common approaches taken with the provinces, either individually or collectively through the Council of Ministers of Education, to national problems such as adult illiteracy and the access of traditionally disadvantaged groups to post-secondary education; substantially increased support for the research capacity and activity of our universities, provided in a manner which respects the priorities of the institutions and the provinces; and creation, upon consultation and agreement with all provinces, of a permanent mechanism or mechanisms to determine national objectives and ensure the co-ordination of federal and provincial efforts in post-secondary education.
The motion I have presented to the House stresses the issue of illiteracy for a number of reasons. First, in a society as affluent and well educated as ours, the current magnitude of the problem is a national disgrace. Second, since adult illiteracy is not a subject to which either level of government has traditionally paid much attention, there are no jurisdictional jealousies or vested interests. The way is clear for immediate, co-operative action.
However, I would not hide the fact that the intent of the motion is much broader. Successful action on this first front must serve as a model and inspiration for broader initiatives. Participants at the national forum on post-secondary education in Saskatoon achieved a remarkable degree of consensus on the proper goals and priorities of the educational system. Whether the "spirit of Saskatoon" survives the difficult and intricate process of finding the right means depends in large measure on the quality and sincerity of our political leadership. The intent of the motion is for the House to begin showing the way.
November 23, 1987
[Stage Direction]
In concluding I should like to mention some positive measures which I feel have been taken in the right direction. In October 1986, for the first time in history, illiteracy received mention in the Speech from the Throne. Last year the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) declared war on illiteracy in our prisons, and in the past few months the Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie) has introduced significant new measures, including the establishment of a national literacy secretariat, the appointment of a national literacy council, increased funding of community programs, and an extension of federal-provincial co-operation in literacy initiatives.
The national forum on post-secondary education, which was an excellent success, was held after my motion was introduced, and the subject is now being studied by the Standing Committee on Secretary of State. This necessitates a technical change in my motion, so I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain):
That the word "government" be deleted in paragraphs 1 and 2 and be
replaced by: "Standing Committee on Secretary of State"
I seek unanimous consent of the House to make this change.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie) to move such an amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: There being unanimous consent, debate will continue on the amendment. Does the Hon. Member for York-Sunbury wish to speak to the amendment?


Mr. Howie:: No, Mr. Speaker. The amendment was really only a technical one, as I explained. I think you might continue debate with other Hon. Members who are interested.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In view of the fact that debate on Bill C-51 went on until 5.10 p.m., I wonder whether this debate could continue until 6.10 p.m. so that we get the extra 10 minutes which was robbed from us at the top of the hour at 5 p.m.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I reassure the Hon. Member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott) that I have no intention of cutting short the debate. Earlier, when I gave the floor to the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), I said that I would not see the clock and that the House would consider Private Members' Business for a full hour.


Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay- Labrador):: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in the debate. I compliment the Hon. Member for York- Sunbury (Mr. Howie) on bringing forward this motion.
It is either feast or famine in the House. For a while there was no talk of education, but suddenly within the past two weeks there has been a great deal of it. I had a Bill debated on Friday, as the Hon. Member for York-Sunbury may know. It
Education
seems to me that the Hon. Member's motion complements that nicely. Indeed it supports the general idea that we have national problems in Canada which call for national solutions.
He is quite right that although education is a provincial responsibility-and we all recognize that; nobody would want to take away that responsibility-we have too many serious national problems which can only be addressed by a national consensus.
It is my feeling that in unity there is strength and that, instead of having to go it alone, the provinces can go it cooperatively with their sister provinces, with the Government of Canada, and possibly with other members of the educational constituency-students, teachers, and administrators who are interested in it.
The motion of the Hon. Member focuses particularly on literacy. I think it is commendable because it is a serious blot on the national face. There is no question that illiteracy is a serious problem all across the country ranging from British Columbia to Newfoundland. Illiteracy in the population goes anywhere from just below 20 per cent, as I recall the figures in British Columbia, to a high of over 40 per cent in the Province of Newfoundland. In between, in Ontario and Quebec, we have percentages in the twenties.
Whether illiteracy is 18 per cent or 44 per cent of the population, it is completely unacceptable from a moral point and an economic point of view. I understand there will very soon be a study being done on the question of illiteracy which will show that not only is this a human problem creating a tragic difficulty for individuals but it is costing our country hundreds of millions of dollars. I have not even dealt with the safety aspect of the person who cannot read signs on the job. There are hundreds of thousands of Canadians who cannot participate fully in Canadian life because they cannot read and write and are not functional. It costs businesses hundreds of millions of dollars. I suggest that those businesses have to take a look at this as must the Government.
I feel that the Government has not made the kind of commitment it should. A million dollars to solve the problem of illiteracy is almost an insult. It is little better than that. It will need many more dollars before we can say that we have made an adequate contribution to the problem of illiteracy.
I agree with the Hon. Member for York-Sunbury that these things should be done jointly. But it should not be just a federal and provincial effort. We must go beyond that. The Member went beyond that by suggesting that we need, I think the words he used to describe it are, a national council on education. In part his motion reads:
That the Government examine the benefits of establishing a national council
on education to promote the jointly negotiated and agreed upon national
objectives-
He goes beyond the motion of Friday which dealt with postsecondary education. The Canadian Teachers' Federation, for

November 23, 1987
Education
example, has had for quite some time a policy asking for exactly what the Hon. Member proposes in his motion.
1 believe with the Hon. Member that it is time now not to look at things as we always have historically. When the country was put together in 1867 there were certain realities in Canada. It seems to me that we are still living with the structures put in place in 1867, but this is 1987. Perhaps we need a new, fresh vision of what it is to be Canadian and how we can get people to participate in national life fully. I agree with the general thrust of what the Hon. Member is saying. There is in Canada now a national need.
He is quite right in saying that not only is illiteracy a problem but that the problem ranges all the way to postsecondary education. The post-secondary education system in Canada has been described as being in crisis. I do not think that is an understatement. There is the question of underfunding, the question of limited assets, the question of teachers and professors who are leaving for the United States, and the question of professors who are not being replaced. The 40 or 50 year old professor is not being replaced because many people are not entering the field of university teaching. Salaries are low.
In my own Province of Newfoundland if you walk through the tunnels between the buildings at Memorial University you will find drips all the way through from the plant pipes. Normal maintenance has not been done. Our university buildings and facilities are falling into disrepair. This is a serious problem. It cannot be the responsibility of the provinces alone. In the Province of Newfoundland, if I can take that example again, there is not the financial adequacy within the budget to deal with these problems, particularly if federal funding is being cut back. The provinces which this motion and approach would help are the less well off provinces in Canada. Ontario can probably well survive on its own and deal with this problem. It is doing so, as is Quebec. I have to say quite candidly in this Chamber that most of the outstanding initiatives in Canada that have taken place within the recent past have come out of the Province of Quebec.
From a financial point, strategy and policy point of view, Ontario and Quebec are handling their problems, I think, in an imaginative way. That is not true for the provinces not in the same financial position. It seems to me that a co-ordinated cooperative national approach would help. We need a national vision to help the disadvantaged particularly. Whether we are talking about disadvantaged people or disadvantaged regions, we need to band together, to create not a federal or provincial body but a national body to deal with the very powerful, important, tragic and imminent national need.
I have a great deal of pleasure in supporting the motion of the Member from York-Sunbury, and I compliment the Hon. Member for bringing it forward. He has mentioned a couple of other things that I have not because of time constraints. He is quite right that there must be adequate funds for research. He
mentioned that illiteracy is the most urgent problem and that there should be broader initiatives later on.
I support this motion and I believe my Party as a whole will support it. It is something that should not be dropped. It should be kept very much alive. I hope there will be an opportunity within the House and within the committee of the Secretary of State to examine this fundamental problem from the ground up, ranging from illiteracy to post-secondary education. We cannot put it aside. We must deal with it, and I hope the House will see in its wisdom that that is the case and support the motion of the Hon. Member.


David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, I rise to support the motion of the Hon. Member for York- Sunbury (Mr. Howie). It is very similar to a motion I submitted which has not been called for debate. My motion reads as follows:
That a special committee of the House should be established to consider
Canada's serious and growing illiteracy problem and recommend ways that the
Government, in conjunction with the provinces and territories, can join the
United Nations attack on illiteracy.
It is frightening, to say the least, that a country as industrially developed as Canada finds that almost a quarter of its people are functionally illiterate. An in-depth series on the problem and the scope of it was reported in a number of articles that appeared in Southam newspapers within the last year describing the dimensions of the problem. A study indicated that 24 per cent of Canadians are functionally illiterate. That are five million people and 13 per cent of these are recent high school graduates. In a study done for the Canadian Association of Adult Education in June 1985, it was reported that in the Provinces of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, and Quebec more than one in four adults have less than a Grade 8 education. Almost 40 per cent of Canadian women and almost 35 per cent of Canadian men with less than a Grade 8 education live in Quebec. One-third of the educationally disadvantaged adults are employed. Seven per cent are unemployed, and the unemployment rate is 15 per cent. Three-fifths are not in the labour force; that is, are not actively seeking work.
This is a problem which has tremendous and profound implications for all Canadians. Like most other countries in the world, we are moving to an era in which education and knowledge are an absolute necessity if our citizens are to find the kind of jobs which will be available. Increasingly, these jobs will call for a much better level of education than most of us have, and particularly for a better education than those who are functionally illiterate have.
One of the problems is that we have never really faced up to asking who are the functionally illiterate. If we did ask that question, we would find that the groups from which the illiterate come vary from province to province and from city to city. In most larger cities, there are new immigrants who came from countries in which the languages spoken were neither
November 23, 1987

English nor French. In some cities such as Winnipeg or Regina, there are native people who have moved in recent years from the reserves where education was, by any standard that can be set, deficient to say the least. There are people who grew up and lived in rural areas where until very recently the educational standards were very low.
It is good news that the federal Conservative Government has recognized the problem publicly and has allocated $1 million to fight illiteracy. However, looking at the scope of the problem, we realize that the amount allocated is a mere a drop in the bucket. As I see it, it is merely a public relations exercise.
Ian Morrison, the Director of the Canadian Association for Adult Education, has estimated that it would take $100 million to substantially improve literacy in Canada. It is pretty clear that without major efforts on the part of Governments, both federal and provincial, in co-operation with the groups in various parts of Canada which have worked on the problem and learned how to help people who are illiterate, real progress will not be made.
Organizations such as Frontier College, the Regina Public Library and unions in my city such as the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, all have programs ongoing. These programs are small but these organizations have learned a great deal about how to begin to cope with the problem. However, $1 million will not do very much. We cannot expect the provinces or the cities to do the job which is required if for no other reason than that they simply do not have the money.
Just last week, there was a small article in the Toronto Star reporting that school districts in Toronto and North York are having tremendous problems. There has been a tremendous influx of immigrant students who need education in English as a second language. These school boards do not have the financial ability to deal with those problems.
We need a new approach, we need a serious approach. Some months ago, the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) announced a program to help those in penitentiaries who are illiterate to get an education. 1 welcome that program, but 1 ask why it is restricted only to people who are in penitentiaries.
The Department of Employment and Immigration under the former Liberal Government and under the present Government has cut back on programs which can be described as adult basic education. Those are the programs which could help a great many illiterate people. However, the Departments have not been very sympathetic to this idea. They have been cutting back on those programs because no quick results are shown. People do not get jobs if they only have this basic educational training funded by the Department of Employment and Immigration. The Department wants to show that people who participate in its programs move quickly into jobs.
The reality is that people who are functionally illiterate are almost always either unemployed or have low-paying unskilled
Education
jobs from which they will never be able to move. It is clear that a major effort must be made in this regard.
It is true that this federal Government, like the former Liberal Government, takes the attitude that education under our Constitution is a provincial responsibility and therefore the federal Government very frequently refuses to get involved and to put up money. People who are illiterate are doomed to failure in the future. That failure will be felt by those people first but it will be felt by all Canadians as well.
We in Canada have one of the worst records of any of the industrialized countries in the world. It seems to me that we need a decision made by the federal Government to co-operate with the provinces and the voluntary agencies which have experience in this area to assess the dimensions of the problem and calculate the costs of improving the situation. There has been no real improvement in the situation in the last 25 years. The percentage of the functionally illiterate has hovered at between 20 per cent and 25 per cent and is not getting lower despite all the supposed efforts made by the federal Government, by the provinces and by the voluntary agencies. All of these efforts together have been less than successful.
We need a commitment from the federal Government to cooperate with the provinces in calculating the methods that can be used to reduce the number of functionally illiterate and the costs of this. The federal Government must agree to participate in the battle. That means that it must participate in the funding of a major effort.
While I welcome this resolution, I am not too hopeful that the federal Government, given its concentration on the need to control or reduce the deficit, is likely to do what is necessary. To the extent that this resolution helps highlight the dimensions of the problem, I support it.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Madam Speaker, whether or not this should be a political issue is a question which I do not wish to discuss. I do not believe that the first two speakers approached the political aspects in any way and I do not think we should do so in this debate.
Perhaps if the Government of Canada has made mistakes throughout Confederation, it may very well be that we have made too many political decisions without considering the practicality of them. I believe this is one decision that should now be and should stay above the rank of politics or its consideration as a political matter.
We do have a federal provincial confederation system of government. That system has delineated certain responsibilities to certain levels of government. I believe that if the federal Government has a level of responsibility, it is in influence and not in participation or interference. That is our responsibility.
I want to speak on this subject from the perspective of my experience as a student and teacher. I believe that if we are to exert influence, it may be along the lines of putting more

November 23, 1987
Education
emphasis on the three r's, reading, 'riting and 'rithmetic. Arithmetic, of course, is not a matter of literacy but it is very important.
When we speak about the incapacity of the illiterate, that incapacity is a handicap as real as a physical handicap in today's world. It has always been a handicap, but today it is a major handicap. I believe we have to come back to a much greater emphasis in our schools on reading and writing to the point that the first objective of education is competence in those two areas.
Over the years we have overlooked this as we accepted the representations of many people who had what they thought were compassionate ideas for teaching. Some of those ideas were that we should perhaps not have examinations or competition, but we should allow students to learn at the rate at which they wish to learn rather than at the rate at which they are capable of learning. I believe that some of the standards we have established for advancement from grade to grade have been such that students find themselves in a very handicapped position. We have ignored reading and writing to that point.
Not very long ago I talked to a student who graduated from high school at the honours level only to find that she had taken courses which in no way prepared her for college. Yet college had been her declared goal for years. The practice of her school was to emphasize subjects other than those which provide a broad base of information and knowledge to put you in a position to be competent in college. That is where we have to provide some leadership and influence. However, we should not take action which will interfere in any way with a sphere of provincial jurisdiction as important as this one is.
1 had the experience of becoming a teacher at the same high school I attended. By that time a curriculum was in place different from that which I experienced as a student. When I was a student I had to write essays, create stories and write letters, which were in turn examined and graded by the teacher. When I became a parent no such practice was followed with my children.
I have employed people in my office who graduated from high school or business college and could not spell. I mean they could not spell in a very rudimentary way. Yet they had graduated and become secretaries.
When 1 began teaching in Grade 9 I found that I now had a student body which could not read or understand high school textbooks because there had been a major change in the vocabulary requirement in the first eight grades of school.
If we have a responsibility here it is to provide leadership. We must restore to the school system competence in reading and writing as a necessary basis for promotion from class to class. Let us not have poor spellers coming out of high school and business colleges seeking employment. No, they are not illiterate but the education system has obviously been negligent
in extending to those students the skills so necessary for the occupation they have chosen.
I understand that the Hon. Member for Grand Falls- White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) was a teacher. I do not know what experience he might have had but he spoke as one with a sincere interest in education, as have other speakers.
I congratulate the Hon. Member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie) for putting this motion before the House and I congratulate those who have participated in the debate. I hope that we give this subject consideration which is completely unprejudiced and unpolitical.
If this motion goes to committee we will not be pestered by special interest groups. Our consideration will be dedicated to the best interests of all Canadians with respect to our education system. Let us hope that we elevate that system to the point that when one leaves high school one can listen to media commentary or read The Globe and Mail or The Telegraph-Journal with understanding and comprehension.
There are degrees of illiteracy. There are those who cannot read or write at all. However, the degree of literacy we must achieve is that which will allow the young people of this nation to move into whatever career they choose with the ability to use their skills in the best possible way. Without that capability, those people are handicapped. It must be costing us not millions but billions in lost productivity.
The best educated people in the world today, presumably, are the Japanese and they are leading the way. It used to be that the United States had the highest number of high school graduates, college graduates and technical school graduates. I do not believe that applies any longer. Therefore, let us step up the level of advice from Government so there will no longer be illiterates and our graduate students at whatever level will be more competent in developing both our society and their own future than they are today.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Madam Speaker, first, I would like to say that I really appreciate the Private Member's motion introduced by the hon. Member for York- Sunbury (Mr. Howie). I believe that it is very important. It is unacceptable that we should have such a high rate of illiteracy in our society.

I would like to tell the Hon. Member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie) as well as the Hon. Member for Grand Falls- White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) that the level of illiteracy in our society is totally unacceptable. The figures run from one in five to one in four, so you can imagine what the total effect must be on the social, economic, political and moral interests of all Canadians. This is a national disgrace and needs very serious attention.
November 23, 1987

I appreciate the suggestion made by the Member to move for a national council on education to promote jointly negotiated and agreed upon national objectives. However, it will take a great deal of time to arrive at such a federal-provincial initiative. We must consider some creative and innovative solutions in the interim. Notwithstanding the fact that I totally support any initiative, we need some other mechanisms until we are able to address this problem fully.
As a director of youth protection in the Province of Quebec I noted with a great deal of sadness the discomfort, embarrassment, and unwillingness of parents to acknowledge their illiteracy. They could not read contracts which were written for their children who had performed criminal acts and were in the first stage of becoming non-productive members of our society. These parents were incapable of understanding the contents of written contracts. These people love their children and want to help them, yet are unable to do so in acute situations. What must happen on a daily basis when they want to lend a hand in the general education of their children?
The level of illiteracy is a reflection of the level of immigration to this country and the fact that we have not done a good job of integration with new immigrants who are the backbone of the building of this country. If we want new immigrants to become well established and able to make the contributions which they need to make to society we must make a commitment from the first day that they come to this land.
The first commitment is to ensure that every man, woman, and child who comes here is at least able to read, write and know the fundamentals of our language in order that they can do their banking and shopping and understand a contract with a landlord. It is absolutely crucial from a social perspective that these people be able to understand our society. If they become ill they must be able to follow medical instructions and read labels on medication. The implications are very serious because these people are incapacitated and handicapped. If we looked at it in that way we would be able to move in a number of areas other than only through the Department of Immigration.
I am not trying to politicize this debate, but I believe that the $1 million which the Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie) has seen fit to allocate right now is only a small drop in the bucket. I tend to agree with the Adult Education Association of Canada that we need hundreds of millions of dollars.
I would like to suggest one creative stop-gap measure which has been researched and has proven very effective. It is with relation to open captioning on television. That little square box in our home has a very important impact on our lives. Everyone who watches this box can learn effectively. By watching the lettering at the bottom of the screen people learn by associating the word with the image.
The hearing impaired have complained that less than 50 per cent of the programs which they would like to watch are close-
Education
captioned and that their rights are abridged under the Constitution. They believe they should be able to watch all programs. I suggest that, as a start, all news programs should be close captioned because we become good citizens by understanding what is going on in our society. By running open captioning we could render a service to the hearing impaired and the illiterate at the same time. We would be accomplishing at least one step toward the multitude of action plans which will be required. We need creative, innovative, and imaginative ideas.
People are ashamed and embarrassed to acknowledge that they have been in this wonderful county for many years but have not been able to master either English or French. They may not be illiterate in their own language, but in Canada they are illiterate with regard to the economic, social, and political impact on their lives and on our country.
I make that suggestion as one window of opportunity on the national objective. I believe that we should look more closely at the handling of immigrants and their integration into our society. I refer not only to the working men and women and their children, but also to the husband or wife who chooses to work at home. That is very important.
I am sure that no Member of this House is proud of the fact that some 20 to 25 per cent of our society is in those circumstances. This is a cumulative problem and we must begin now to push the project ahead. I congratulate the Hon. Member on the project and let us accomplish some other things at the same time.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam
Speaker, as Chairperson of the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Secretary of State I am extremely pleased at the prospect of our committee taking on the subject matter of the motion of the Hon. Member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie). I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for raising issues which affect literally millions of Canadians from all walks of life, all age groups, and all sectors of our society. I hope that within the next few minutes there will be unanimous consent to refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Secretary of State.
It is very clear that the Government fully supports the spirit of the motion. Through the Department of the Secretary of State, and especially the Minister, the Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie), the Government has worked hard to put education issues on the national agenda. I want to pay tribute at this time to the Secretary of State who showed imagination and courage in mounting the national forum in post-secondary education in Saskatoon. I will have a few more words to say about that in a moment.

I am glad to see that the motion recognizes the constitutional jurisdiction of the provinces for education. We all know that the educational system comes under provincial jurisdiction,

November 23, 1987
Education
and all federal initiatives in this area must take this fact into account.
Members of this House are well aware that federal contributions are mostly for post-secondary education. Leaving aside the urgent problem of illiteracy, the Government has given priority to many problems which require an immediate attention.
These concerns were discussed, as I was saying earlier, at the historic three-day national forum on post-secondary education held in Saskatoon from October 25 to October 27. It was historic because that was the first time that the federal and provincial Governments have co-sponsored such a national educational event. It was historic because it brought together not only both federal and provincial Governments, but academics and people from all walks of life who care about higher education.
The forum provided a chance for the first truly national exploration of the challenges and opportunities of higher education in Canada. A gathering of more than 600 people represented the richness and diversity not only of Canada's colleges and universities, but also of Canadian society itself.

One of the major objectives of the Forum was to achieve a new national consensus on the importance of post-secondary education in Canada. The participants agreed that one of the major issues in that area was access for people of all ages and all cultural and linguistic groups.
Among the other concerns raised during the Forum to which the Government is giving its full attention, I would mention assistance to students through the Canadian Student Loans Program, the new incentive provisions for foreign students and university research.
The Secretary of State has asked for a full review of the Canadian Student Loans Program. This includes the creation of an ongoing intergovernmental advisory committee for student assistance and of a public advisory group, which will provide guidance on the future of federal programs in that area.

In addition, the Government has made known that it intends to make it easier and fairer for students to repay their loans, to improve assistance offered to part-time students, and to respond to the needs of the working poor, single parents and others with special needs.
In terms of increased accessibility, foreign students must also be included. Institutions as well as federal and provincial Governments recognize such students as assets and an investment in international good will. The Government has therefore recently announced the creation of 1,000 new
scholarships for foreign students from developing countries, bringing the total to 7,000, no imposition of a student visa fee, and an easing of the rules about foreign students working in Canada.

Madam Speaker, university research is another area where the Government has already shown a strong political will. Several weeks ago, the Government injected an additional $11 million into this year's budget for university research subsidy councils, as well as an additional $7 million for microelectronics research in universities.
Federal Government support to these councils now amounts to $600 million a year. The Government also developed recently a matching subsidy policy to promote Canadian private sector support.
However, a tragic problem still remains, that of illiteracy. Those who can neither read nor write sufficiently to accomplish the basic exchanges of daily life are truly disadvantaged in many ways. Innumerable communications means are closed to them and they are subject to constant humiliations.
The Secretary of State, who has been designated as the lead Minister responsible for the federal Government's literacy initiatives, issued a statement on September 8 to mark World Literacy Day. In his statement he outlined various initiatives which the federal Government is taking to give effect to the commitment made in the Throne Speech concerning literacy. The Minister emphasized a partnership approach with the provinces and with groups in the public and private sectors which are involved with this crucial problem.
I see that we are approaching the end of Private Members' Hour, Madam Speaker. In view of the sense in the Chamber on the part of all Parties that the motion of the Hon. Member for York-Sunbury be referred to the Standing Committee on Secretary of State, which committee I have the honour to chair, I request that the question now be put.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Howie) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Shall the main motion as amended carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
November 23, 1987


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion carried.
Motion as amended agreed to.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 66 deemed to have been moved.
['The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).']
Blaine Allen Thacker: Madam Speaker, I note that the Hon. Member for London-Middlesex (Mr. Clifford) is out of the Chamber temporarily. Perhaps we could proceed to the next question on the adjournment debate and deal with the Hon. Member's question at the end of the late show.
TRADE-FILM DISTRIBUTION INDUSTRY-FILM IMPORT LICENSING/BOOK PUBLISHING INDUSTRY


Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, I am rising to continue discussion on a question regarding film distribution and free trade which I raised in the House a short while ago. Members of the House may recall that there was a task force on film distribution. We have a situation in which most Canadians, when they go to the cinema, watch American films. Some 97 per cent of the profit of film distribution goes outside the country to the United States and is reinvested in film production. Canadian films are not being shown. The money from film distribution that you and I pay when we go to the movies is not going into Canadian film producing, hiring Canadian writers, directors, actors, and technical people, but is going to the United States, to Hollywood, and providing jobs there.
Those facts have been known for a very long time, and as a result of this the Liberal Government preceding this Government was afraid to do anything about this. This Government had a task force on the subject, and the Raymond-Roth report came out a couple of years ago recommending a system of Canadian ownership of film distribution.
The Government was not quite prepared to go as far as Canadian ownership in film distribution. It preferred to think that the task force had not even recommended that. However, it did agree to bring in a Bill on film distribution that would make it a little easier for Canadians to get into the industry and have more control over film distribution in Canada. Mainly this would be done by a system of licences for film importing.
A Bill to that effect has been prepared. It is in the Department of Communications. I have seen a copy of it. It has been circulated, not properly, but it is around. We know that the work has been done, a Bill has been drafted, yet it has not been
Adjournment Debate
introduced. Why not? It so happens that in discussions on free trade this is a very touchy matter.
The President of the United States is a former actor, and he has been defending his friends in the film industry who would like to continue to milk Canadians of all their profits from film distribution and have them go to Hollywood instead of Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, Winnipeg, or any other places that produce films.
We would like to see more production in Canada. But it seems that film distribution has been a sacrificial lamb for the free trade discussions. If the Government had kept its word on culture and free trade, there would be no section on culture in the free trade agreement at all. In fact, there is a section, it is not a very long section, but there is one. It seems that the Bill on film distribution has been sacrificed to get some accommodation from the Americans on free trade and culture.
I remind you, Madam Speaker, that culture was on the bargaining table, and there were give-aways; there were giveaways in periodical publications, and there were assurances that Canada would not take further so-called protectionist measures to add to the list of trade irritants. What seems to be protectionism for the United States is for us absolutely vital in order to have independent cultural industries at all, because we do not have the same market size as the Americans do to appeal to. We must have our own particular measures to ensure that our industries are fostered, and Canadian artistic and creative people get jobs in Canada.
It is with some dismay that I learned that the Minister is still saying that the Bill will come in. In documents that have come out from the United States there have been comments that, in the free trade arrangements and the negotiations, the Canadians agreed to solve the problem of Jack Valenti of the American majors. His problem is that he wishes to keep that 97 per cent of profits from Canada and keep us down to 3 per cent, instead of having us increase and coming more and more to manage our own Canadian film industry, and have the money from movie-goers go to provide more jobs for Canadian creative people.
If the free trade agreement had excluded culture completely, we would not have had this in the synopsis. The United States recognizes the importance to Canada of maintaining its cultural identity. However, at the same time the United States wants to ensure that Canadian cultural policies do not constitute a discriminatory and unnecessary barrier to U.S. trade. They call it discrimination. Our promoting Canadian culture to them is discrimination, and Canada agreed to that. Recognizing Canadian sensitivities, the United States has agreed that certain cultural areas are not subject to specific provisions of the agreement. However, others are. Printing is, and we have seen measures in book publishing to have printing done in Canada, for example, in the case of Ontario, where books cannot be bought for school boards that are not authored and printed in Canada. This kind of arrangement

November 23, 1987
Adjournment Debate
would now be illegal under the free trade agreement. It would certainly mean a loss of jobs in the printing industry.
The agreement continues:
For its part, Canada has agreed that cultural measures it takes will not impair the benefits the United States would otherwise expect from the provisions of the agreement.
There is a provision for compensation if Canada should do that. In short, Canada has agreed, in the cultural negotiations as part of the free trade agreement, to give up certain rights in cultural areas and that if the Government takes action in the future-and we would want it to take action-we would have to expect retaliation. In other words, we would be agreeing in advance that the United States had a case for retaliation against us, which is unacceptable. I have raised the matter before, and I will continue to raise it.
We want to see whether the Government, in good faith, is sticking to its guns on film distribution. It should bring in a Bill without delay and should make very clear to the Americans that culture is not something to be bargained away, that compensation is not appropriate, that indeed printing is a cultural industry like many other cultural industries, and that we want to safeguard our culture in Canada by using all methods at our disposal.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Madam Speaker, as the Minister indicated in the House, the Government has stated all along that our cultural industries would be protected in any trade deal. From the outset the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) have said that our cultural industries would be exempt from the agreement, and indeed we have done just that.
As well, the Minister told the House on October 5 that the Government had indicated that it was prepared to create a separate market for film distribution rights and to ensure that Canadian independent distributors would have access to those rights. This intention still stands and has not been altered as part of the trade agreement. There is nothing in the free trade deal which prevents us from meeting this objective.
The Government has shown strong commitment to foster comprehensively the development of a healthy Canadian film industry, and we will continue to do so.
One problem facing our distribution sector has always been the lack of a distinct national market. The policy the Minister proposed last February will ensure that Canada is treated as a separate market.
Another problem has been the lack of adequate financing. We are very aware of the critical role distributors play in a healthy, well-balanced film industry, and we want to ensure that Canadian distributors have access to a fair share of the Canadian film market so that they can rechannel funds back into the film industry.
The Government is examining additional measures which will be of benefit to the Canadian distribution sector, and we are doing so by consulting with the film industry.
Also the Hon. Member raised a question with regard to the Baie Comeau policy on foreign investment in the publishing industry. I must repeat to the Hon. Member that cultural industries are excluded from the investment chapter of the trade agreement. Therefore, the Baie Comeau policy remains in effect.
The Minister said in the House on October 5 that not only has the Government succeeded in maintaining the application of the Baie Comeau policy to indirect acquisitions, but we have also negotiated an agreement on indirect acquisitions in the cultural industries generally. To quote from the agreement, it reads:
Canada undertakes that in the event that it requires the divestiture to Canadians of a U.S. controlled business in a cultural industry, as part of the review of an indirect acquisition of such a business, Canada will offer to purchase the business at fair, open market value as determined by an independent, impartial assessment.
The Canadian Government will then resell these industries to a Canadian purchaser. That is a big step forward.
On September 26, 1985 the Prime Minister said the following when the Government formally undertook the free trade initiative:
Our political sovereignty, our system of social programs, our commitment to fight regional disparities, our unique cultural identity, our special linguistic character-these are the essence of Canada. They are not at issue in these negotiations.
Canada has scored a great victory in its trade agreement with the United States which will be of benefit to the entire country. We have done so without undermining our cultural identity. In fact, we have protected our cultural policies and programs in the free trade agreement, and the Hon. Member should indeed be congratulating us.



[Stage Direction]
MARINE TRANSPORTATION 1NDUSTRY/DELAY ALLEGED IN PROCEEDING WITH LEGISLATION/REQUEST THAT MINISTER NOT SIGN TRANSPORTATION ANNEX TO AGREEMENT
André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I should recall that when reserving the right to review the provisions of the Canada-United States Free-Trade Agreement, on the matter of Marine transportation the United States Senate caught the Canadian Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) with his pants down.
Indeed, on September 23, 1987, the Standing Committee on Regulations approved an amendment to the fast review rule requiring that the American Senate should approve or reject the agreement without any amendments. This means the US Senate now be empowered to amend the provisions of the agreement dealing with marine transportation. Given the
November 23, 1987

current situation the 56 US Senators and 233 Congressmen who have signed resolutions requesting that any provisions that might harm US shipping be deleted from the Canada-US Agreement, expect to convince the American administration that it should delete the provisions concerning marine transportation, for fear of seeing the whole agreement fall flat.
Judging by the second draft schedule received last week, the Reagan administration is taking that threat very seriously, much more so than our Canadian Minister of Transport who last Friday had to recognize he was powerless. Indeed, the last transportation draft provisions show Canadian shipping would be excluded from any new maritime transportation program such as the US Government supplies and goods preference.
The Canadian marine industry had planned to challenge the US merchant marine legislation, the 1920 Jones Act, a bill that has been there, not for 200 years as the Minister of Transport indicated Friday but since 1920, and that applies to all components of the American maritime industry. Now Canadian shipping companies are disappointed that the free trade agreement did not result as they had hoped in the drafting of a North American Jones Act which, according to Mr. Fred Pitre, Vice President of Canada Steamship Lines, would have combined the open character and flexibility of the Canada Shipping Act with the national security safeguards contained in the Jones Act.
Speaking on behalf of the Dominion Marine Association, its Chairman Mr. Norman Hall is asking that short of an overall free trade agreement on shipping, Canadian negotiators should at least look at the matter of discriminatory investment rules in the United States. At the present time an Americam shipping company can invest up to 100 per cent in a Canadian company and use a foreign-built vessel to transport goods from one port to another in Canada. Conversely a Canadian investor can acquire only 25 per cent of an American shipping company and must use nothing but ships built in the United States. Competition therefore is unfair and definitely not favourable to Canada's economy. So much for a flagrant disparity which will be set in concrete under the Reagan-Mulroney agreement.
On the other hand Canadian shipyards and their employees have every interest to ensure that Canadian shipping services be given the same protection as the American merchant marine under the Jones Act. Shipbuilding and Ship Repairing Association President Clarke is afraid that any softening of the protection provisions might give foreign-built vessels access to Canada, and he wants Canadian legislation to provide the same protection as the American law. Finally, the labour unions-Seafarers International Union and Merchant Service Guild-which represent 5,000-odd Canadian sailors share this point of view.
Both unions are deeply concerned that Canadian shipping activities might come under strong attack from renamed vessels operated by American equipment and crews.
While the American shipping industry was making very strong representations to prevent our merchant marine from
Adjournment Debate
gaining access to the American domestic market, the Government introduced Bill C-52 whose purpose was to ensure that shipping operations in Canadian waters would be the exclusive reserve of Canadian vessels.
On the other hand, when we discussed the legislation we emphasized the fact that allowing foreign shipping to become involved in marine transportation within or without Canada's inshore waters, for lack of available Canadian ships, was in fact a dangerous surrendering of marine transportation operation to foreign companies, especially American ones. On the other hand, it was perhaps still more proper to state as we did that the time was ill-chosen for this Conservative Government to introduce amendments to the Shipping Act, and that they should have done that much earlier in their term of office, that is in 1985 or even 1986. A few weeks later, the Minister of Transport indicated our view when he called for the suspension of the Legislative Committee hearings on Bill C-52 until the conclusion of the free trade agreement.
The problem now is very serious. In line with the American shipping companies' suggestions that any new act or any amendment to existing acts should provide national treatment to the other country, Canada should now, if Bill C-52 is passed, once the free trade agreement is ratified, grant national treatment to American shipping companies.
That is the problem we are facing, which means that this Conservative Government's negligence has endangered the possibility of a shipping act reform along the lines of national prerogatives, and is now running the risk of having American companies invade our marine industry because of the delays already incurred.
Last Friday the Minister, in answer to my questions, said the United States had refused to yield on some items. One of those items was marine transportation. In the worst case, the status quo would be maintained. But the status quo is unacceptable in the circumstances. All this points to the total failure of the Minister of Transport, who in the circumstances is seen as the worst Minister of Transport in Canada's history. He is famous for his jokes, but surely the Canadian transport industry is not laughing: it is shocked at this Minister's incompetence.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Madam Speaker, the Government has been incorrectly accused of selling out the Canadian transportation industry for the sake of a free trade agreement with the United States. Let me assure Hon. Members that this is absolutely not the case.
I find it hard to believe that preserving the status quo can be misconstrued by Hon. Members opposite as a sell-out. We are not giving anything away. We argued for the easing up of restrictions on both sides of the border. We proposed cabotage

November 23, 1987
Adjournment Debate
in all modes of transport. Because the U.S. would not agree, there will be no roll-backs by either country.
We are anticipating that the agreement will result in a larger volume and a value of goods, services and people travelling in both directions. This should stimulate Canadian firms involved in transborder transport activity.
Canadian transportation firms are already competitive and they will be even more competitive under the new National Transportation Act and the new Motor Vehicle Transport Act. For several years now, Canadian trucking firms have enjoyed access to the U.S. market-place. These firms were quick to capitalize on the opportunity provided by U.S. deregulation and have successfully established themselves in the U.S. market.
In future, American carriers wishing to operate domestically in Canada will still be required to establish a Canadian subsidiary, to employ Canadians, to pay Canadian taxes and so on. It will be easier for them to obtain a licence, that is true, but in every other respect, customs and immigration laws apply as they do in the other way. In short, the same situation which has applied to Canadians in the U.S. market since 1980 will apply.
It is true that each state will be able to continue to regulate trucking within its borders. However, trucking associations which have been critical of the FTA have yet to cite even a single instance of a Canadian trucker being refused entry by a U.S. state. Not one example of this has been brought to our attention, and I would like to see one. I can only conclude from that that the problem is not as bad as they say it is.
Accusations have also been made that Bill C-18 has given American railway companies access to Canadian markets while the free trade agreement did not secure reciprocal access. Competitive line rates provisions of the National Transport Act were instituted to assist Canadian shippers captive to one railway, not to allow U.S. railways to access the Canadian market. These competitive line rates provisions can be suspended if Canadian railways suffer significant economic losses. In summary, the free trade agreement will be good for Canadians and good for the Canadian transportation industry.


VIA RAIL-SERVICE IN WINDSOR-LONDON-TORONTO CORRIDOR
Terrence (Terry) Clifford: Madam
Speaker, I certainly appreciate your consideration on this very hectic day.
On May 28, 1987, I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) how ordinary Canadians could have input on decisions being made by VIA Rail. Both the Minister and VIA Rail agreed that greater consultation between the corporation and the people it serves was needed.
Shortly after, on June 11, a new VIA consultative committee was established and its inaugural meeting was held in
London to discuss scheduling, service, marketing, equipment allocation, and other topics of interest to both VIA Rail and the municipalities it serves. The committee felt that VIA had a real problem with on-time performance and the resulting negative public perception of VIA. VIA reacted to those concerns in a positive way which is a good example of how, by working together, good things can be accomplished. Let me give you some examples.
In the first five months of 1986, the over-all average on-time performance of trains through London was 69 per cent. In the same five-month period in 1987 the average was 76 per cent. Then the on-time performance commitment program by VIA was put in place and even greater improvements were made. For May 1 to September 30, 1987, some 75 per cent of the trains travelling from Toronto to Windsor through London were on time. For trains from Toronto through London to Sarnia it was 83 per cent. It is interesting to note that 90 per cent of the trains from Toronto to London were on time. Clearly, the consultative committees and VIA working together produced a good result.
Given that, I wonder why the program was discontinued at the end of October. Perhaps even greater gains could have been realized had this program been maintained by VIA.
Another problem that the committee recognized was frequency of service. Both lines north and south of London have asked for a late train from Toronto. To date neither request has had a positive result. We cannot even get a late night train for weekend travel from Toronto to London and cities beyond. The committee has experienced some frustration there.
A new first-class service, VIA-1, was introduced in October and it has received very positive response in our community, particularly on the morning train. We have also realized very positive passenger trends recently. In southwestern Ontario passenger use is up 5.8 per cent over all this year, and on the Toronto-London-Windsor corridor it is up 11.7 per cent. It is very encouraging to see that VIA is listening to these communities and getting things done.
The most travelled corridor in Canada is the Windsor-Quebec City corridor. The City of London representative asked why the new equipment which VIA was able to get as a result of the actions of the Government would go to unprofitable runs, namely the transcontinental runs, rather than to the most travelled corridor in Canada where the prospects for profit were brightest. Why were we shut out? The London committee was quite concerned about VIA's action in this area.
More LRC equipment is not available because an LRC updating program is in progress. They are fixing locomotives which are relatively new. Some of the locomotives on our run are 30 and 40 years old. The newest ones are all in a major repair program and we are still waiting for the equipment
November 23, 1987

which we were promised. Therefore, the committee is very disappointed in the equipment allocation to the most travelled run. If we are ever going to make money on trains it will be in this corridor.
We are encouraged to hear from VIA that new state-of-the-art F-40 locomotives built at General Motors Diesel in London, Ontario-which is one of the jewels in London- Middlesex-are hopefully going to be added to this line in 1989. This will, no doubt, improve on-time performance.
The senior citizens of Canada are concerned as well. They have told me that they want to travel by train. They live in London and have a family in Toronto, for instance, or they just want to take in the sights. However, no one wants to confront the stairs at Union Station. The stairs are a worrisome obstacle, not only for older people but for parents with baby carriages and for practically anyone with luggage. I hope VIA Rail will install, with the urging of the consultative committee, an escalator in Union Station to make it a little easier to take the train.
The same problem exists for the disabled. They are finding it difficult to use the trains. More people would take the train if the services existed and were advertised.
The consultative committee is encouraged by the improved marketing through joint tourism promotions and advertising which should benefit both the municipality and VIA Rail. However, before the committee gets too involved with increasing ridership, it should understand that they are losing some of their potential customers. It is very important to advertise.
VIA has done this by designating London as the "National Getaway Centre". VIA's computerized reservation system will contain pertinent information on the events taking place in London as well as on hotels, et cetera. VIA reservation clerks and agents will be able to access this information in the computer. This program will be of great benefit to Canadian and American tourists. The City of London is looking forward to the exposure.
If the committees can continue their work and the Minister monitors their reports, we will be able to work together to get a train system which works. The infamous Mussolini made a train system which worked in his country and surely we can do that in Canada.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Madam Speaker, with respect to the question raised by the Hon. Member for London-Middlesex (Mr. Clifford) concerning rail passenger services in southwestern Ontario, I wish to point out first that, as the Minister indicated to the Hon. Member last May, a new consultative committee has been set up by VIA for the London area. It has met and is meeting again this Friday.
Adjournment Debate
I understand that the Hon. Member is part of the committee as well as a member of the North Mainline Route Committee which concerns itself with rail passenger service between Toronto and London through Stratford. If he performs on that committee as he does on the standing committee, I can assure you that he gives the people of that area first-class representation.
I further understand that VIA's fall schedule changes, which are to go into effect on November 29, were the subject of extensive discussions with committee members. As a result of representations from the committees VIA agreed to shift the departure time of the last train on the Toronto-Stratford-London route from 1915 to 1810 to accommodate the needs of most of the users.
A subcommittee of the Northern Mainline Route Committee has been struck to consider marketing, frequency, and further schedule changes. It will report back to the full committee at its next regularly scheduled meeting.
I would like to take this opportunity to comment on the success of new marketing and customer service initiatives that VIA has put in place. A new upgraded VIA-1 first-class service, which was introduced on September 8 throughout the Quebec-Windsor corridor, has met with rave reviews. In midAugust VIA introduced student fares throughout the VIA system after a successful trial.
Because of the renewed commitment to VIA Rail services which the Government announced in May of this year, VIA is able to undertake an extensive program to refurbish VIA's existing equipment which represents a tripling of its budget for such work. This is in addition to the capital investment approved for equipment in terms of the train car modernization program and the acquisition of more new locomotives.
As to the latter, VIA has finished taking delivery for the first order of 30 locomotives at a cost of $75 million. The locomotives were built by General Motors Diesel Division in the city the Hon. Member represents. Contracts for the second order of 26 locomotives are expected to be awarded shortly and GM is one of the firms which will get the contract. VIA is still reviewing its plans for the deployment of the locomotives.
All of these initiatives in respect of equipment, together with the new maintenance facilities, should greatly enhance the reliability and attractiveness of VIA's services.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.42 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Tuesday, November 24, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers