House of Commons Hansard #159 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was smoking.

Topics

Motions For PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Motions For PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Reform

Peter Goldring Reform Edmonton East, AB

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I would like to move production of papers No. P-33.

Motions For PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is it agreed that we revert to Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers for the purpose of this request?

Motions For PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Motions For PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Motions For PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

We just had them all stand. That is the trouble. No one else rose. I did ask. I said can we now have them stand and everybody said yes. I do not like to be difficult, but we had disposed of the matter.

Motions For PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Reform

Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, I know you do not want to be difficult and none of us do. The way that transpired, because there had been two requests in a row from the same member, what all of us assumed here was that you had caught the member's eye, which you did. You kind of looked over and asked if there were any more and you said that was all. When you said c'est tout, I thought that was to do with that member. I did not think we were finished with that particular part of Routine Proceedings.

Motions For PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON

Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to reverting to this item on the order paper.

Motions For PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Perhaps we could revert. The Speaker did sweep his benevolent eye down the opposition bench to see if there were any other members rising on this point. I really did think it was done. I was not trying to raise the mettle through the House.

It was Motion No. P-33, was it not? P-33 is called.

Motion P-33

That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all documents, reports, minutes of meetings, notes, memos, correspondence and briefings relating to the recent recommendation made to the government by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade regarding the claim of Canadian veterans against Japan for forced labour while in captivity in Hong Kong during World War II and Article 26 of the 1952 Peace Treaty with Japan in association with the May 1998 report tabled in the House of Commons by the same Committee.

Motions For PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Wascana Saskatchewan

Liberal

Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board

Mr. Speaker, I move that this item be transferred for debate.

Motions For PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The motion is transferred for debate pursuant to Standing Order 97(1).

Motions For PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Reform

Peter Goldring Reform Edmonton East, AB

Mr. Speaker, I would like Motion No. P-46 to be called.

Motion P-46

That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all documents, reports, minutes of meetings, notes, memos and correspondence regarding all aspects of what is known as the Gulf War Syndrome.

Motions For PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Wascana Saskatchewan

Liberal

Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board

Mr. Speaker, once again I would move that this item be transferred for debate.

Motions For PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The motion is transferred for debate pursuant to Standing Order 97(1).

Motions For PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

NDP

Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understood that there had been consultations among all parties regarding a clemency motion.

Motions For PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

An hon. member

Tomorrow.

Motions For PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

NDP

Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC

That is for tomorrow. I am a day ahead.

Motions For PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is it agreed then that all the remaining Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers stand?

Motions For PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Tobacco ActGovernment Orders

November 25th, 1998 / 3:25 p.m.

Wascana Saskatchewan

Liberal

Ralph Goodale Liberalfor the Minister of Health

moved that Bill C-42, an act to amend the Tobacco Act, be read the third time and passed.

Tobacco ActGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Thornhill Ontario

Liberal

Elinor Caplan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate on this crucial piece of legislation.

It is a privilege to support Bill C-42 because it represents yet another step in the government's efforts to put Canada squarely at the international forefront of tobacco control.

As hon. members will recall, in the spring of 1997 the House passed Bill C-71, the Tobacco Act, which instituted a number of stringent restrictions on the marketing of tobacco products. It was a strong law then and it went a long way toward protecting the Canadian public from the ravages of smoking. It was a necessary law, because smoking is a public health crisis and it is of extraordinary proportions.

The amendments contained in the legislation before us today would make that strong law even stronger. By phasing out over five years all tobacco company sponsorship promotions of entertainment and sporting events, Bill C-42 reinforces this government's commitment to protecting Canadians and in particular, impressionable young people from the noxious influence of cigarette marketing.

As parliamentarians we will be sending a powerful and historic message to Canadians and in particular to cigarette manufacturers. We will be saying in no uncertain terms that tobacco smoke is public health enemy number one. We will be saying that we will not tolerate the multinational tobacco industry targeting our young people in any attempt to convince them to pick up the habit.

Permit me to briefly outline the contents of Bill C-42. As hon. members will recall, one section of the Tobacco Act includes restrictions on the way tobacco companies could advertise and promote their financial sponsorship of events such as automobile racing, show jumping, musical events and so forth.

In essence they could only display their brand names and logos on the bottom 10% on the face of ads, signs, billboards and so on. This restriction raised concerns. The motor sport industry, for instance, feared that the sudden loss of corporate sponsorship would jeopardize Canada's capacity to host international racing events.

Bill C-42 addresses these concerns. It proposes a phased approach which would delay the enforcement of the Tobacco Act promotional restrictions for two years. For the subsequent three years cigarette companies would be allowed to continue sponsoring events. However, their promotional activities outside the actual site, off site, will be restricted to the 10% size restrictions specified in the Tobacco Act.

At the end of five years, by 2003, promotional sponsorship by cigarette makers will be banned altogether. That is why I say that Bill C-42 strengthens the Tobacco Act. Instead of merely restricting promotional activity, the bill will prohibit them entirely.

These legislative changes will put Canada ahead of other nations that hold the health of their citizens in high regard. Indeed we are moving faster than Australia and the European Union, which are both implementing a similar sponsorship ban in the year 2006, three years after ours.

There is no doubt that some of the cultural and sporting groups may feel the financial pinch when the cigarette manufacturing giants are forced to withdraw their millions of dollars in sponsorship promotion. However, the fact is arts organizations and sports promoters told us over and over again that what they really needed was time to find alternative sources of funding support. That, in a nutshell, is the purpose of Bill C-42.

These groups told us that they also needed fairness. Thus under the proposed amendments every group from the Newfoundland Symphony Orchestra to the Victoria International Jazz Festival will be treated the same. One group will not be entitled to cigarette money that is denied to another.

It is also important to point out that with Bill C-71, as with Bill C-42 before us today, the government has sought to protect public health while at the same time respecting legitimate concerns of cultural and sports organizations. As such Bill C-42 represents a careful compromise, a delicate balance between those who would desire a complete ban, preferably yesterday, and those who feel it is equally necessary to accommodate sponsored sports, cultural and entertainment events.

Striking that balance has necessitated extensive consultations both with health groups and with representatives of the arts and entertainment industry. In that context I wish to acknowledge the important contribution of the House of Commons Standing Committee of Health in carrying forward the consultation process and refining the bill before us today. As a result of the committee hearings, the government listened and further strengthened Bill C-42 as follows.

First, the start of the phase-in period of the bill is clearly identified as October 1, 1998. This means that if the legislation passes, the five year clock will have already begun ticking.

Second, the grandfathering clause in Bill C-42 would only apply to events that had been held in Canada. In other words, promoters would not be able to move an event here from the United States or elsewhere merely to benefit from the phase-in provisions of the ban on cigarette sponsorship advertising.

Third, the new amendments would permit the grandfathering only of events that have been held in Canada in the 15 months prior to April 25, 1997. That would prevent promoters from resurrecting long dead festivals solely for their value as tobacco marketing vehicles. These changes to Bill C-42 were proposed by the health community, were adopted by the government and are consistent with our public health approach.

In conclusion, we have all heard the alarming facts. Smoking is far and away the major preventable cause of death and disease in Canada. It is estimated that nearly one in five deaths in Canada can be attributed to smoking and that is more than suicides, vehicle crashes, AIDS and murder combined. Every year 45,000 Canadians die of cancer, heart disease and lung disease as a result of tobacco use. Many more Canadians have their quality of life compromised by emphysema and other respiratory ailments.

We know that many people get hooked on smoking during their teen years and that young people are particularly vulnerable to peer pressure and messages, sometimes subliminal, encouraging them to smoke. Obviously as a caring society we have a moral obligation to act. We have a responsibility toward future generations and a duty to help our impressionable young people resist the lure of this deadly habit.

Health groups across the country urged us to lead the fight against smoking. We have not failed them. The Tobacco Act, as we propose to amend it, would give the government some meaningful ammunition in the battle against cigarette use. The legislation gives us as a society the power to look a gift horse in the mouth. We will have the wherewithal to say to tobacco manufacturers “Thanks, but no thanks. We value the health of our children too much to accept your money for event sponsorship”.

I would therefore urge all parties to support the bill so that step by step we can win the battle against tobacco use and achieve our goal of a smoke free society and a healthier Canada. I would like to share my remaining time with the member for Oak Ridges.

Tobacco ActGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Does the House give unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to share her time with the hon. member for Oak Ridges?

Tobacco ActGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Tobacco ActGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

There are 30 minutes remaining in the hon. member's time.

Tobacco ActGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

Bryon Wilfert Liberal Oak Ridges, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of the amendment to the Tobacco Act placed before the House by the Minister of Health.

The amendment's proposal for a complete ban on the promotion of tobacco sponsorship is a step to be applauded and supported by all members of the House. It is a significant protective measure that will help reduce youth smoking and ultimately save young lives. It says no once and for all to tobacco companies using sponsorship to link their deadly products to popular youth oriented events and lifestyles. It says no to the consistent barrage of images that encourage young people to take up smoking and stay addicted to cigarettes.

The bill is the result of extensive consultation with many concerned parties across the country. As a result of this consultation we have proposed legislation that takes us further than ever before in protecting children and youth from harmful effects of tobacco. The latest consultations carried out this month by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health confirmed the need for firm legislation to reduce tobacco use among youth.

The committee listened carefully to the views of a number of groups before approving three new recommendations from the Canadian Cancer Society and other health NGOs. The recommendations presented today as amendments to the legislation make the bill a stronger, more precise instrument for reducing tobacco use among Canadian youth.

As past president of the Canadian Parks and Recreation Association I worked a few years ago with the then minister of health on a program called a break free all stars program aimed at making sure that young people between seven and and twelve years of age did not smoke or take up smoking. I know these kinds of programs can be and are effective. I applaud the government for the type of legislation that it is bringing to the House.

There is no question the bill specifically identifies October 1, 1998 as the start date for the transition. In effect this means that the five year clock has already begun to tick down on sponsorship promotion if the amendment and bill pass.

The bill mandates that the only events which can be grandfathered would be those that have been held in Canada, although it was never the government's intent to allow otherwise. The change will make it clear that an event cannot be moved from elsewhere into Canada and treated as if it has always been here.

The bill mandates that only events which have been held in Canada between January 25, 1996 and April 25, 1997 can be grandfathered. Once again it was never the government's intent to allow events to be resurrected solely for their value as marketing tobacco products.

All three of these changes are important clarifications that are completely consistent with strengthening the government's health objectives. I thank members of the Standing Committee on Health for supporting the inclusion of three amendments in the bill. No doubt critics of the legislation will claim that the government is going too far. Given the alarming statistics on youth and smoking in Canada today, the amendment is appropriate and necessary.

As a former educator having worked with young people for 20 years, I can tell the House of the devastating effects on young people who take up smoking and who get addicted. I will point out some statistics which will illustrate what the government is trying to prevent.

Smoking among Canadian teens between 15 and 19 years of age has increased 25% since 1991. Currently one in three young Canadians smoke and half of them will die prematurely of tobacco related disease. It is for that important reason the Minister of Health has called tobacco use by Canada's youth an urgent public issue. The amendment before the House today is a firm response to the issue on the part of the federal government.

The government's response is clearly in line with the attitude of Canadians toward smoking. Canadians recognize that smoking is our number one health problem. They are also all too aware of the devastation tobacco has wreaked upon the health of our current generation. They implore the government to make every effort to ensure that such devastation will not be inflicted on future generations.

When it comes to youth and smoking the statistics show that we have our work cut out for us: 29% of 15 to 19 year olds and 7% of 10 to 14 year old are current smokers. According to the 1994 youth smoking survey, 260,000 kids in Canada between the ages of 10 and 19 were beginner smokers that year. Figures like these are very disturbing. They are being replicated in other countries and have prompted other governments and the World Health Organization to classify smoking as a global pediatric epidemic.

Assumption patterns reveal that the number of young female smokers has been rising significantly. Again I can speak from personal experience having taught for many years. Girls in particular smoke early, continue to smoke and are less likely to break the habit. As all youth smokers get older, they smoke more. Smokers 10 to 14 years of age on average smoke seven cigarettes a day. Of those 15 to 19 years of age smoke on average 11 cigarettes a day.

What is striking as evidence of youth smoking is the knowledge among youth about the effects of tobacco use.

More than 90% of people between the ages of 10 and 19 believe that tobacco is addictive. A similar percentage believes that environmental tobacco smoke can be harmful to the health of people who do not smoke themselves. About 85% of all smokers surveyed say they began smoking before they were 16 years of age.

My own father, who passed away six years ago, started smoking when he was 13. He died of lung cancer.

The critical time for smoking decisions appears to be between the ages of 12 and 14. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that tobacco sponsorship targets events like music festivals, tennis tournaments and motor racing, which are popular with this age group.

For young people, taking up smoking is a gradual process. It begins with forming a predisposition to smoke; that is, a perception that smoking is normal behaviour and acceptable in society among one's peer group. The perception of normalcy and acceptability that cigarettes are an integral part of a happy and fulfilling life is exactly the perception that tobacco sponsorship promotion encourages among children and youth.

Trying smoking can lead to the experimental stage when smoking happens repeatedly but irregularly. Regular use and addiction follow. The transition from trying to daily use takes an average of two to three years.

About two-thirds of teens will try smoking and about one-half of this group will become regular daily smokers. About 90% of smokers start well before the age of 20.

In surveys, youth have told us that they never expected to become addicted, believing instead that they would be able to quit whenever they wanted to do so. Just as addiction to cigarettes is a gradual process, so is quitting.

Many young people contemplate quitting, prepare to quit and then try to quit. But quitting is not an easy proposition. That is because nicotine is highly addictive. It is as addictive as heroin or cocaine. It is not surprising then that about three-quarters of smokers over the age of 15 have tried to quit but failed.

It is ironic that my own father quit smoking three years before he died. It was an arduous task for him to quit smoking after having smoked for more than 50 years.

Based on the evidence of the health threats of tobacco, based on the thousands of deaths from tobacco related diseases and the terrible toll that tobacco addiction takes on individuals in society, it is very difficult to imagine any reason for not supporting the bill and its important amendments to the Tobacco Act.

It has often been said that young people are the future of this country. It only makes sense, therefore, that we invest in them by protecting them and by ensuring the safest and healthiest environment for their growth and development. That is what this amendment is all about.

I call on all members of the House to support the amendment. A vote in favour of a ban on the promotion of tobacco sponsorship in this country is a vote for a safer, healthier and more productive future for Canada's youth.