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

Tobacco ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Reform

Keith Martin Reform Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to speak today to Bill C-42, a bill that we have been working on for a long time to try to address what members from across the way have said is the single greatest threat to public health in this country. They are quite correct.

However, I am absolutely dismayed by the comments which have come from the other side. The government claims to be the great upholder of smoking prevention in this country. It was this government that had the single greatest negative impact on the health of Canadians when it rolled back tobacco taxes in 1994. This undid 15 years of good work in the prevention and decrease of tobacco consumption in this country, particularly for our youth.

There was a solution to the smuggling problem of the time that did not involve rolling back taxes, but the single act of rolling back taxes has led a quarter of a million children in Canada to take up smoking. Two hundred and fifty thousand children are now smoking when they would not have done so before.

This message was given to the Minister of Health by the ministry itself. The Ministry of Health told the Minister of Health that if he rolled back the taxes a quarter of a million young people would pick up smoking, that it would have a devastating effect on the country with respect to health care costs, not to mention the humanitarian effects on those people, and that it would affect those most affected by tobacco consumption and cost, the youth of Canada. Yet the government went ahead and did it.

I understand the circumstances. A great deal of smuggling was taking place, particularly in certain areas of Quebec and Ontario. But there was another solution, a solution which we presented many times to the minister. It was a solution that had worked before: an export tax.

We had the same situation in 1991-92. The government of the day introduced an $8 export tax on each carton of cigarettes. Each carton that went to the United States would be stamped and an $8 fee would be paid by the tobacco company. That completely cut the legs out from bringing that tobacco back into Canada with the benefit of the price differential between the United States and Canada. Six weeks after it was introduced that measure caused a 70% decline in tobacco smuggling.

However, the prime minister of the day, Mr. Mulroney, caved in under pressure from the tobacco companies. The tobacco companies told Prime Minister Mulroney that they would leave the country if he brought in a tobacco export tax. He removed the export tax and smuggling resumed. If we look back in history we will see that the solution was there.

What we presented in 1994 was a solution. Do not roll back the taxes; implement an export tax. The smuggling that took place at that time not only involved cigarettes, it also involved guns, people, alcohol and other contraband. Tobacco was a conduit for the smuggling that was unfortunately taking place on such reserves as Kanasatake and Kahnawake, to name two. It was run by thugs attached to organized crime, particularly from the United States.

No one talks about the aboriginal people on those reserves and how some of those people were held hostage to criminals within their midst, many who came from the United States. Police officers were apparently told that they could not touch the smugglers going back and forth across the border because the government was afraid of an Oka crisis. This had nothing to do with Oka. It everything to do with thugs taking advantage of a political problem within our country, thugs who were by and large American. We buckled under and to this day that smuggling is still taking place.

This is my message for the government. If it truly wants to deal with the tobacco epidemic, and it is an epidemic within our midst, then there are solutions. The solutions are: raising the taxes to the level they were at before February 1994, applying an export tax to cut the legs out from underneath smuggling, enforcing the law where smuggling is taking place, and dealing with appropriate education, which the government, to its credit, has begun to introduce. However, although it promised a large sum of money for that purpose, a large chunk of money has unfortunately not yet been seen by the appropriate organizations.

In looking at the scope of this problem we can look at what happened before 1994 and since 1994. As I said before, there are 250,000 more children smoking. In 1961 there were about 13,000 smokers who died. Twelve thousand were men and 1,000 were women. In 1996-97 that figure climbed to a whopping 48,000. There are 48,000 people every year who die of tobacco related illnesses.

The numbers have changed. Tobacco consumption deaths among women have climbed dramatically. Tobacco deaths among women have now surpassed all other causes of cancer related deaths, including breast cancer. That is a profound tragedy.

To put it in perspective, 48,000 people die every year from smoking related deaths. Forty-two thousand people died in World War II. That means that every year more people die from tobacco related illnesses in Canada than those who died in World War II.

The solutions are there. What we can do, as I said before, is raise the taxes to what they were, increase the export tax, enforce the law and address the education issue.

We should not start talking to individuals when they are 17, 18, 20 or 22 years old about quitting smoking. As the member across the way quite correctly mentioned, people start smoking when they are 10, 11 or 12 years old. They do not start when they are 20.

As a result, our efforts must be addressed to younger individuals. I would submit that we have to start at ages 6 and 7. If we start at that age then perhaps we can have an effect. We should not hit them with the fact that their mortality will change. Teenagers and young children do not understand that. If we tell them they are going to die young, they know that. In fact, statistical evidence shows very clearly that young people know they are going to die young. They know the effects of tobacco. Interestingly enough, many teenagers feel they are not going to be smoking two years after they leave high school. However, 80% of them will still be smoking eight years later.

We have to address their sense of narcissism. We have to address the fact that their skin is going to look older sooner, that their breath is going to smell foul, and that their hair and skin is going to smell foul. We have to address young girls in particular. I hate to address that group, but it is the group that has increasing consumption. We have to tell them that although it keeps them slimmer, which is one of the primary reasons for them to smoke, it also makes them grow older faster and it is not sexy, despite what they may claim.

Although that is a brutal thing to say, if we address it at their level, in a way that they understand, then we will get into their psyche and have a profound effect. We must address their narcissism, not their mortality. We must tell them about what it will do to them physically, how it will age them and how they will smell.

Although there is some movement in that direction I think the government can certainly play a very constructive role in convincing health care groups to deal with it in that way.

With respect to this bill, I would suggest that there are a number of amendments that could have and should have been made. The fact that the government is going to extend tobacco sponsorships for two more years is ridiculous. That will put it at five years.

Members on the other side claim that this is somehow going to address the issue of sponsorship and it is going to protect companies. All they need to do is look at the experience in Europe. Europe did the same thing. They introduced laws very quickly. Sporting events and such got other sponsors, including car racing.

It is continually brought forth that car racing, tennis matches and such would somehow not occur in this country if we did not have tobacco groups to sponsor them. That is completely untrue. Again, the government only needs to look at the experience in the United States.

Another thing that could have happened was to put a ceiling on tobacco company sponsorship promotion expenditures during the delay period. The government could have put a ceiling on that but did not. It could have taken a leaf from Quebec's book. Quebec has implemented a similar measure with good effect.

Sponsorship promotions should not be permitted on the inside and outside of stores where tobacco is sold. That could be done now but it is not being done.

The government believes that tobacco companies can be trusted. This is complete nonsense. Tobacco companies have been asked to do things voluntarily. They have weakened their own so-called voluntary restraint by introducing tobacco advertisements within school zones. This happened in 1996, after the government had implored them to adhere to fair-minded rules and regulations so that children would not be subjected to tobacco advertising within and around schools. Tobacco companies surreptitiously did it anyway. They thumbed their noses at the government and the Canadian people.

The government could have introduced other things. It could have ensured that cabinet would determine the exact starting date of the ban. Right now it is an open book. It could start December 1 this year, December 1 next year, or the year after. That needed to be in this bill and it is not.

The government could have had a delay period for tobacco sponsorship promotions. It could have specified that sponsorship promotions for foreign events could not occur in Canada during the transition period. It could have banned the use of famous individuals in advertising and prevent misleading advertising.

From looking at the good analysis by the Ministry of Health on advertising, we know that those advertisements are geared to children no matter what the companies say. I sat on the health committee four years ago. I was shocked when people who had been bought and paid for by the tobacco companies appeared as witnesses in front of the health committee, big guns from the United States who were obviously paid a lot of money. They had been in high positions in the U.S. government. When asked pointedly if they thought tobacco had a negative effect on the health of people, their response was “we are not doctors; we do not know”. Those kinds of blatant and obviously misleading comments by witnesses should never be tolerated. They give insight into the actions and beliefs of the tobacco companies.

We need not look any further. Tobacco companies have been caught putting added nicotine into tobacco. They up the nicotine content which ups the potential for addiction.

We can also look at their actions in other countries. What they do in China is appalling. China has an enormous health care problem with cancer, emphysema, bronchitis and other related illnesses related to tobacco because tobacco consumption is going up. In some countries the tobacco companies sponsor parties and dances which are geared to children. They give out free cigarettes for no other purpose than to ensure that the children become addicted.

It has been mentioned in the House many times that tobacco, as with cocaine, is the leading most potent addictive substance we know of today. We know very clearly that despite what they say, tobacco companies gear their advertising, their work, their efforts not to adults but to youth. A good chunk of their efforts are designed to hit that vulnerable group.

Tragically the government fell into the trap by lowering taxes and rolling them back. This is despite repeated warnings by the Ministry of Health that this is going to affect children deleteriously. This is despite the fact that this is going to cost the Canadian taxpayer billions of dollars, not only in health care costs, but also in the loss of revenue from taxes and losses in the gross domestic product. It is not just a matter of death. Smokers have greater chances of becoming sick than non-smokers do. Smokers stay away from work longer. The cost to the gross domestic product is enormous.

There are obvious effective solutions, particularly with respect to the cost. Studies show that the price elasticity on demand for tobacco is very high, especially with respect to children. The higher the cost, the less they smoke; the lower the cost, the more they smoke. It is not rocket science. This is perhaps the most important message the government needs to listen to.

The government can twiddle all it wants around the edges of this issue. It can talk about plain packaging. It can talk about sponsorship. It can talk about education. But when it comes down to the cold hard facts, the single most important determinant in consumption is price, particularly for the youth.

I implore the members across the way to look at the information that has been put out by the health ministry. It is unfortunate that the Minister of Health has chosen not to speak to this bill yet. It does not look like he is going to speak to it and I wonder why.

I wonder if the minister truly is ashamed of this bill. Perhaps he is ashamed that the government has not taken a more proactive approach, a more effective approach particularly in view of the fact that he has been caught holding the bag for what his predecessors have done. The minister has been left holding the bag for an implementation strategy which, rather than lowering tobacco consumption, has increased it and not in any small amount. It is a huge amount, a quarter of a million children, and every month that we fail to change the situation, 10,000 more children will take up the tobacco habit. I cannot believe that despite the clear evidence this government continues to pursue the course and tack it is taking.

The government submits that it is the great upholder of the health of Canadians. A former Minister of Health said during her tenure “I would do anything, anything, to prevent one child from picking up smoking”. That minister and this government has failed, failed, failed in that promise.

The government would find a great deal of co-operation across party lines in pursuing an effective tobacco strategy. Please do not buckle under the threats of the tobacco industry that it would pull out of Canada. Do not buckle under the submissions the companies make that this is not addressed to children. Do not believe that this is going to prevent race car driving, tennis tournaments and other such events from taking place in this country. The facts do not support those allegations. In fact the tobacco industry has very little credibility anywhere in the world.

We can see what is happening in the United States today. The companies are paying hundreds of billions of dollars to state governments because of the cost they have incurred to those governments. They are willing to pay large sums of money, which they have, to get out.

We cannot let them off the hook. While prohibition does not work, and no one is advocating that, there are effective measures that have been implemented around the world. Before 1994 Canada was a world leader in dealing with the tobacco issue through its education strategies and by increasing the taxes on tobacco.

If we take a lesson from what we have done historically, if we do not buckle under the tobacco companies and if we work together on this issue, as the hon. NDP member mentioned in the health committee, we would be addressing the most important health care issue affecting Canadians today. Tobacco is the greatest public health care issue affecting Canadians today. This has been echoed by the member from the NDP and the member from the Liberal Party. It has been echoed many times by my colleague from Alberta and our health care critic, and members from other parties.

I implore the government to work with our party and other parties to come up with an effective strategy to deal with tobacco consumption. This bill simply does not cut the mustard.

Tobacco ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Peterborough Ontario

Liberal

Peter Adams LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That Bill C-42, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 26 and 27 on page 3 with the following:

Promotional material

“(3) Subsections 24(2) and (3) apply beginning on October 1, 2000 and ending on September 30, 2003 to”

Tobacco ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Greg Thompson Progressive Conservative Charlotte, NB

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am not prepared to give unanimous consent to that motion, simply because the government rammed this through clause by clause at committee stage. Basically it boils down to the government making a major mistake.

Tobacco ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

Obviously there is not unanimous consent for the motion.

Tobacco ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Greg Thompson Progressive Conservative Charlotte, NB

Madam Speaker, the point I want to make is that I will agree to unanimous consent if the government agrees that it made a tactical error in ramming this through clause by clause at the committee stage.

Tobacco ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON

Madam Speaker, I would ask that you seek the unanimous consent I requested.

Tobacco ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

Tobacco ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Tobacco ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Tobacco ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Reform

Roy H. Bailey Reform Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Reform Party will give consent to this particular motion. I want to make it clear that in so doing we are not agreeing with the bill. We are only agreeing with the change in dates. We violently, and I mean violently, oppose this bill.

Tobacco ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

I will ask the House again for unanimous consent just to make sure that I heard it correctly the first time.

Is there unanimous consent?

Tobacco ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Tobacco ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Tobacco ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Greg Thompson Progressive Conservative Charlotte, NB

Madam Speaker, because of the nature of the debate today, I think it might be wiser for the government to introduce that when some of the key speakers on the opposition side are not here because obviously we do not agree with it.

Tobacco ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

There is not unanimous consent.

Tobacco ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

NDP

Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North Centre, MB

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that if the government House leader is listening to this concern, he might be able to find a way to ensure that there is unanimous consent for dealing with this correction in the printing of the bill. Certainly we are prepared to give unanimous consent. However, we also want to acknowledge the Conservative member's concern about the haste with which this bill was pushed through committee, which would obviously lead to errors as we have now before us.

I am wondering if the spokesperson for the government could acknowledge those concerns that we probably could find a way to have unanimous consent.

Tobacco ActGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON

Madam Speaker, as my colleague from the NDP has just said, this is a technical matter.

It has to do with some mistakes in dates in this section and some differences between the English and the French. Perhaps this problem did arise because of some haste.

Tobacco ActGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Bloc

Pauline Picard Bloc Drummond, QC

Madam Speaker, I would point out that we will also support this change. However, I agree with our Progressive Conservative colleague that suddenly raising a point of order to say there is a change requiring the unanimous consent of the House is not the way to do things.

That rather reduces the role of parliamentarians. The government pushed us a bit during consideration of this bill. It is a bit distressing when they arrive at the last minute with proposals as we consider Bill C-42 at third reading.

I simply wanted to say that. We will give our consent, but, next time, they must let us do our work conscientiously.

Tobacco ActGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

Is there unanimous consent for the motion?

Tobacco ActGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

(Amendment agreed to)

Tobacco ActGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Bloc

Pauline Picard Bloc Drummond, QC

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate at third reading of Bill C-42 and to raise certain arguments.

Many things have been said. My colleagues from the other parties have pointed out the great harm that smoking has done in Canada and in every province. As legislators, the members of this House must be able to promote and adopt laws against the use of tobacco, particularly among the young.

The data given us by anti-smoking organizations are frightening. These statistics have made us aware of this scourge. We are often tempted to think there are fewer smokers. Perhaps there is a reduction in the number of smokers in certain categories of people, for example among adults, but young people are starting to smoke earlier and earlier.

As has already been pointed out, Bill C-42 delays the implementation of certain sections of the Tobacco Act. Members will recall Bill C-71 passed by this House. Bill C-42 has mainly to do with tobacco sponsorships.

The amendments provide for a two-year moratorium on the restrictions governing sponsorships by tobacco companies until October 2000. From the third to the fifth year, the restrictions will apply as initially provided in Bill C-71, that is to say, the name of the company may appear on only 10% of advertising space. It is very important that the public be told that the ban on sponsorships will be total as of October 1, 2003.

The primary purpose of Bill C-42 is to amend the existing Tobacco Act so as to extend the transition deadline before the enforcement of the restrictions already imposed.

The first phase of the bill, which runs for two years after the amendment comes into effect, extends the status quo for promotion both on and off the sites of events and activities that were sponsored by tobacco companies before April 25, 1997.

The second phase, lasting three years after the two years of transition, will again extend the status quo for promotions throughout the site of sponsored events and activities, by permitting the display of product-related brand elements in promotional material.

It will also permit sponsorship promotions on the site of an event as it unfolds or according to other regulatory provisions; and apply the existing 90/10 restriction in the Tobacco Act to sponsorship promotions off site. These promotions will also be permitted in mailings sent directly to adults, in publications whose readership is essentially adult and in bars and taverns where minors are denied access by law.

The third aspect of the amendment is the considerable toughening up of the Tobacco Act in relation to the bill passed in April. Where some might have interpreted the 10% rule as a breach, there is no longer any doubt. We are talking zero tolerance.

This total prohibition will take effect immediately following the five year transition period. At that point, the Tobacco Act will prohibit all promotional sponsorship by tobacco companies. It will also prohibit the appearance of brand elements on permanent facilities or in them.

With such measures, Canada is following the worldwide trend to set more and more restrictions on the sponsorship and promotional activities of tobacco companies. The European Union intends to prohibit all industry sponsorship by 2006. A number of signatory countries have already prohibited all tobacco advertising and sponsorship within their borders. New Zealand, Australia and the United States have—or are heading toward—a total ban. The total ban after October 1, 2003 is therefore ahead of a number of countries, but the extended deadline makes it possible to take a sensible approach which will avoid numerous problems at the international level, for Formula I racing in particular, as well as on the economic level.

That said, the Bloc Quebecois has always been in favour of the key principles relating to health, and the campaign against smoking, particularly among young people, is close to our hearts.

The Bloc Quebecois is in favour of any measure to reduce smoking. We are in favour of measures to raise awareness and to educate people, as well as any measure to help eliminate this scourge that is costing so many lives and creating so many health problems.

It must not be forgotten, however, that health still comes under provincial jurisdiction. It is primarily at this level that health protection measures should be developed and administered.

This brings me to Quebec's existing anti-smoking legislation, which was sponsored by the present health minister. It was passed on June 17, 1998. The proposed legislation was received favourably by the media, health organizations, organizers of sports and cultural events, and the general public.

Quebec's Minister of Health avoided the errors made by the federal government by introducing much more realistic standards to combat smoking. His legislation is tougher but more flexible.

With respect to the ban on sponsorships, the provincial legislation offers event organizers a choice. The first option is to drop all tobacco-related sponsorships by October 1, 2000 and benefit from a financial assistance program for the period up to October 1, 2003, which is the government's solution. The second option is to accept a five-year transition period with restrictions after October 1, 2000 and no financial assistance, as provided for in the federal bill now before us.

Under the bill, sponsorship contracts already concluded with tobacco companies may stand or be renewed until October 1, 2000. Quebec's legislation provides, however, that the value of such contracts may not exceed their maximum value as at June 11, 1998.

Organizers will have until October 1, 2000 to decide which form of transition they prefer. For those who choose the second transition option, the amendment states that sponsorship promotion may continue on the site where an activity is held and during this activity for three more years after October 1, 2000.

Being able to choose between two options, each having its advantages and drawbacks, is another example of a balance between flexibility and rigidity. Naturally, most of the Quebec organizations and even the Canadian anti-smoking associations told us in committee and on other occasions that they would prefer that Bill C-42 or the existing federal anti-smoking legislation be harmonized with the legislation passed by Quebec.

As I mentioned earlier, the application is much stricter, but the adjustment for these sports and cultural events organizations which enjoyed tobacco sponsorships is more flexible because after two years they are prevented from advertising. However, until they can find other sponsors, they can draw on the compensatory fund for support.

The federal government should also have established a compensatory fund. In Quebec, the money in this fund comes from taxes on cigarettes.

Tobacco causes health care problems, it causes loss of life and it is a drain on the economy and on tax revenues, forcing taxpayers to pay for health care.

The Quebec legislation provides for a tax on tobacco. It levies a charge on tobacco companies and users, which goes into the compensatory fund, which, at the moment, helps the organizers of sports and cultural events. These people are very appreciative.

At home, we have the du Maurier international tennis championships, which are known worldwide. Sponsorship is by a tobacco company, and that is not necessarily a good image for the championships. In two years' time, they will have to find another sponsor.

Certain companies agreed to sponsor these sports and cultural events, which generated considerable revenue—$30 million for Quebec—as well as very substantial indirect revenues for the communities hosting them. This measure will make it possible to keep these events in the communities and to generate important revenues for the public.

The Bloc Quebecois asked the federal government to pass this measure and it would not have been necessary to give people another five years to make the transition. Although 10% is not very much, it is still advertising and it is still excessive.

I would like to remind members that the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of Bill C-42 because, in our opinion, it is more balanced than the previous legislation, Bill C-71. As I mentioned, we find it deplorable that the government has taken over a year to understand what we have been saying since the beginning of the debate on Bill C-71.

I need not recall how this bill was rushed through committee stage. We were expected to approve the bill without even hearing from important witnesses who wished to voice their objections to Bill C-71. There were many complications. In any event, that bill was replaced by Bill C-42. One year later, we are therefore no further ahead. All these measures have been delayed by one year, when this could have been wrapped up last year.

As I mentioned earlier, the fight against smoking is one that all of society must wage. It is not easy to change a habit that goes back several generations. But, through these bills, authorities will now have better tools with which to tackle the serious public health problem that smoking represents.

Tobacco ActGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

NDP

Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North Centre, MB

Madam Speaker, I appreciate this last opportunity to speak on a major health bill before the Chamber and to explain why the NDP caucus remains firmly opposed to Bill C-42, an act to amend the Tobacco Act. In order for us to effectively debate this issue and to get at the essence of the bill, I believe it is important for us to understand how the origins and the purpose of the bill have been camouflaged by the Liberal government and have been covered with rhetoric and with pretence that does not allow the public to understand what is really at the heart of this matter.

What we are dealing with is smoke and mirrors, to borrow the title of a very important book for this debate by Rob Cunningham of the Cancer Society of Canada. There is no question abut it. Only Liberals in the House would think they can get away with calling a negative a positive. Only Liberals in the House would think about trying to portray reality in fanciful terms.

Look at the most recent issue of health care transfer payment cuts. What did the Liberals do? They would have us and the public believe they reinvested a new amount of $1.5 billion in transfer payments to the provinces for health care. What they do not say is what they are really doing, cutting back what had not yet been taken out of the system and calling it new money, totally disregarding that the base, the minimal amount in terms of health spending, has been reduced down to $12.5 billion, a $6 billion or $7 billion drop since the time when the Liberals took office.

That is the kind of deception we are dealing with with respect to this government, not only when it comes to health transfer cash payments and the whole question of the future of medicare, but specifically when it comes to Bill C-42.

Like the child who said the emperor has no clothes, we say to the Liberal government, it can spin tales, it can disguise the facts but it cannot, to use another fitting analogy, deny the fact that smoke rises. When smoke rises the air is cleared, the truth is revealed and we are able to ensure we can go forward building a case for good, sound public policy when it comes to tobacco consumption.

What I am saying is we first have to do that in the House for this debate. We cannot for one minute longer go any further in allowing the Liberal government to suggest the bill has its origins in a most positive agenda about curbing tobacco sponsorship advertising, controlling tobacco consumption and dealing effectively with addiction problems in terms of cigarettes among young people. The bill does not have its origins in those good intentions.

There is no question we are dealing with a bill that is a step backwards. We are dealing with a bill that waters down and weakens the provisions of the tobacco sponsorship advertising restrictions enshrined in Bill C-71, provisions that were watered down even before those provisions in Bill C-71 were allowed to come into effect.

I raised a point of privilege about the government's bypassing the authority of the House on the implementation of Bill C-71 versus the overriding effect of the provisions in Bill C-42. To clarify, even though Bill C-42 has not yet been passed, and it will go through all the stages and receive final royal assent, the government is operating as if Bill C-42 were passed as of October 1.

As I said in my question of privilege, this is an abuse of the House. This is an abuse of the legislative process and it was entirely avoidable.

The origins of this bill go back to the 1997 federal election when the Liberals signalled to the public that they were prepared to water down the restrictions inherent in Bill C-71.

The origins of Bill C-42 are really the pressure tactics, the heavy handed lobbying tactics of both the tobacco industry and the car racing industry.

To quote from an article that appeared in one of our major newspapers, it is clear that the health minister blames the situation on a letter written by former health minister David Dingwall just before the federal election last April in which Mr. Dingwall finally surrendered to the tobacco companies' threat to cancel their sponsorship of Montreal's Grand Prix.

That is what we are dealing with. We are dealing with a bill that waters down a previous act of parliament because of the pressure of the tobacco industry and the car racing industry. We are dealing with organized attempts to reduce, to minimize restrictions on sponsorship advertising.

What we are dealing with is a cave-in. Let us be clear about it. This is an absolute cave-in, a buckling to those huge lobby forces today.

Why would the present Minister of Health be any different from his predecessors? Why should we have higher expectations from this government and the present Minister of Health than we have had in the past, especially given the history on this issue? The then minister of health who is now the minister of international development was forced, because of pressure again, to lower cigarette taxes.

Her successor, also a former minister of health, David Dingwall, was forced to move away from a total ban on cigarette advertising. Today we have the Minister of Health who was forced to further weaken the sponsorship provisions in Bill C-71, the Tobacco Act.

Who is standing up for health care? Who is setting health policy for Canadians? Is it the Minister of Health or is it the masters behind the tobacco industry? Is it the Minister of Health or is it the Montreal Grand Prix? Is it the Minister of Health or is it the Marlboro man?

We have a critical situation pertaining to smoking addiction, particularly among young people. Yet we have a government prepared to sacrifice the interests of those young Canadians in order for the tobacco industry and the entertainment business to line their pockets with more and more profits.

There is no question that the bill before us today has been treated in a hasty way, has been pushed through the stages of the legislative process on a rapid basis and has not allowed for full debate to occur in this place, nor has it allowed for Canadians to become fully aware of just how regressive this bill is and how many steps backward the government has taken on this important issue.

The government would have us believe this is not a step backward at all, that this is a step forward toward a complete ban on tobacco sponsorship advertising. We applaud this attempt to move public policy toward a complete ban on tobacco sponsorship advertising.

We wonder why it had to happen this way. Why, in order to move forward tomorrow, do we have to take a step backward today? This is probably the first time in this parliament and in previous parliaments, perhaps all parliaments, that a bill actually weakens the provisions established by law to protect children. That is exactly what is happening. We are weakening an act that protects children. We are allowing for bad public policy to proceed. We are failing young people because of the stranglehold the tobacco industry has over the government.

It is a bit of a stretch for the government to suggest that in the long run the bill actually strengthens public policy in relation to tobacco advertising. As many said in committee and elsewhere, in the long run we are going to be dead and in the long run, by virtue statistics, some of us will be dead because of tobacco addiction.

While we commend the government on moving forward toward a complete ban on tobacco sponsorship advertising, we must ask over and over again why it had to weaken the restrictions along the way. Why does the bill allow for free and open sponsorship advertising without restriction at these events?

Some members of the public have been led to believe that the restrictions will happen in two year's time. It is true that some restrictions on tobacco sponsorship advertising will come about in two years, but I remind Liberal members that Bill C-42 lifts all restrictions for on site advertising for the next five years.

Furthermore, the government has been totally adverse to any attempt by opposition members to propose meaningful amendments to ensure we at least honour the principles inherent in Bill C-71 and take some steps forward. We in the House tried to get restrictions on off site advertising, for example in retail stores where kids hang out, in places near schools and playgrounds, in places where children congregate, where young people gather, where they are exposed to and influenced by tobacco advertising, but the government refused to listen to those concerns.

We tried very hard in committee to convince the government, if it has to go down this path, at least to place limits on sponsorship advertising expenditures by tobacco companies. We made this suggestion so organizations counting on tobacco money would not become more dependent as a result of the provisions in Bill C-42. The government would not listen. It would not acknowledge the importance of those amendments and voted en masse to stop all efforts by the opposition.

Not only did the government refuse to consider any substantive amendments presented by the opposition before the committee. It also snuck in an amendment that represents a significant change and opens the doors even wider in terms of tobacco sponsorship advertising. The government snuck in a change that allows tobacco companies to newly sponsor permanent facilities previously restricted at first reading.

The original intention of the bill was to ensure that as many restrictions as possible were in place to deal with any new sponsorships. The government will try to suggest that has happened with the bill, that it has tightened the provisions and put deadlines and limitations in place.

By sneaking in the change with respect to the permanent facilities it has allowed for tobacco companies to sponsor permanent buildings, for example to put up the money to renovate buildings and then be able to have big signs without any restrictions or limitations on the front of the buildings advertising the tobacco companies. Why was it necessary to do that? Why was it necessary to include another loophole in the bill as opposed to trying to tighten it up and trying to move in the right direction?

The health critic of the Conservative Party has raised in the House today the speed and haste with which the government moved to pass Bill C-42. It is absolutely the case that the government has not allowed for adequate debate. It gave witnesses and organizations a 24 hour period to find the time, energy and resources to appear before the health committee. They were given very short notice. They were given very little time to prepare. We were forced as a committee to deal with all the witnesses, the presentations and the clause by clause analysis of the bill in a very tight timeframe.

We dealt with the witnesses and the clause by clause analysis in two short sittings of the committee. That is not adequate debate based on the seriousness of the issue. That is not at all in line with the speeches made by the parliamentary secretary and others in the House today, suggesting that the government has been generous in terms of time allotted before the health committee and that we had thorough discussion in the committee. We did not. It was rammed through committee. We were forced to deal with the bill in a very short period of time and organizations that would have liked to appear before the committee were not given that opportunity.

I hope Liberal members across the way would hear these concerns and in future would agree to allow for adequate time for proper public input on such a major bill.

We have heard from many today about the importance of acting in a proactive way around smoking addictions among young people. I do not need to repeat the statistics about 250,000 young people every year getting hooked on cigarettes. I do not need to repeat the 40,000 deaths a year because of smoking. Suffice it to say, those statistics clearly indicate the seriousness of the issue as a major health problem. It requires and demands proactive and creative initiatives on the part of the government.

Despite the shortness of time that we were able to deal with the bill, I acknowledge that many groups were able to participate in a very meaningful way and were able to do what they could to ensure that all facts were presented to us. I acknowledge the Canadian Cancer Society, the Non-Smokers Rights Association, the CMA, the Federation of Nurses' Unions, Info-Tabac, Physicians for a Smoke Free Canada and many other organizations that appeared before the committee. They worked with us and lobbied very hard for progressive changes in this area. I acknowledge their contributions to this whole area.

I urge the government to acknowledge the seriousness of the issue, to consider a much more comprehensive approach dealing with prevention and the expenditure of moneys it promised in the last election but refused to do, and the value of Bill S-13 and a levy in terms of tobacco industry responsibility. I urge the government to deal with a whole range of tools before it to ensure that we as a parliament and as elected representatives do whatever we can to ensure the good health of young people, children and all Canadians in society today.

Tobacco ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt, Taxation; the hon. member for Churchill, Solicitor General of Canada; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, Health Protection Branch.

Tobacco ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Greg Thompson Progressive Conservative Charlotte, NB

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-42 is not just about tobacco advertising or the government's vain attempt to limit advertising. It is basically about the health of Canadians.

I remind the House that every year in Canada 40,000 Canadians die from smoking. That fact is supported by every major medical group in the country. It is a statistic that even Health Canada supports. It is a big problem.

To give an idea of how big of a problem it is I will use some figures that I have used before. Sometimes we have to implant a visual picture so that people remember the numbers. The number of Canadians who die every year from smoking equals the number of Canadians who died in World War II in total. In other words from 1939 to 1945 approximately 42,000 to 45,000 Canadians died. That is a very disturbing statistic. When we compare that to how many Canadians die on a yearly basis, year in an year out, it is time for second thought.

There is another way to put it in terms of those 40,000 deaths. If we had a major airline crash every day in Canada causing the death of 100 Canadians, day in and day out for one solid year, the total would not equal the number of Canadians who die in one year because of smoking. The member from Newfoundland used the word scandalous. It is scandalous. If it happened in any other jurisdiction the government would do something about it.

We could question how long the Minister of Transport would last or how long the government would sustain the pressure that would be put on it by Canadians from coast to coast if 100 Canadians a day were dying in airline crashes? They would not last long. Somehow the government is able to get away with passing weak legislation like the legislation before us.

Another interesting statistic is that tobacco usage in Canada costs us every year $3 billion in direct costs and $7 billion in indirect costs for a total of $10 billion. The government could argue that it is making money on tobacco and it is. In one year, 365 days from now, the government will have made approximately $2 billion in revenue from taxes on cigarettes.

Tobacco ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

An hon. member

Is that all?