Debates of March 6th, 1997

Tobacco Act

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my speaking time with the hon. member for Mercier.

First of all, I want to say that as a member of the Bloc Quebecois, this is my proudest moment in the past three or four years. Last time, in 1993, we campaigned under the slogan: "On se donne le vrai pouvoir". I remember the taunts of our opponents across the way who said: "Listen the real power is the government, not the opposition".

Yesterday we clearly saw how that power could be exercised at the expense of Quebec. Yesterday, the power of Liberals was a sorry sight. It was pitiful how Liberal members from Quebec who tried to get out of a tight spot, extend moratoriums and find money elsewhere, were finally crushed under the weight of their caucus. If that is the real power of the Liberals, we can do without, and the people of Quebec, I am sure, will re-elect those who defend their interests.

I am fed up with the sentimental rhetoric dished up by members opposite who tell us: "Listen to these people who can no longer bend over to pick up their grandchildren without falling down, because they smoked too much".

At second reading, we agreed with the health objectives of the bill, but now at third reading, when we look at the way sponsorships have been cut, $60 million in Canada, which includes $30 million in Quebec, there is a major problem. There is no compensation.

We heard the Minister of Health say that perhaps the banks could take up the slack. His colleague at Heritage Canada told us there was no way the government could take over the tobacco companies' sponsorships because it would cost far too much.

So the government is getting no for an answer everywhere. The only way was to leave the sponsorships as they are now. There are statistics. The government brandishes its statistics, and we have ours. As the Leader of the Opposition explained yesterday, when young people go to watch the Tennis Canada championships in Montreal, the Players open, will they say on the way home: "I am going to buy a carton of Players?" They are more likely to say they wished they were able to play tennis at that level.

It has not been clearly proven to my satisfaction that advertising automatically creates a need to smoke and automatically induces young people to smoke. I have not seen that happen so far.

I also want to condemn the procedure for getting this bill through the House. We were pushed to adopt this bill very quickly. The government took a very cavalier attitude, which will prevent us from having a debate on the substance of the bill, and even if we have a chance to do so this afternoon, we would have needed far more time to consider how to deal with the health issues and at the same time protect sponsorships. But the government is dead set on having its way. There will be a political price to pay for the government, especially in Quebec.

What sets Quebec apart is its series of festivals. It is something we see everywhere in Quebec, especially in the Montreal area, the French speaking capital of America, where there are many festivals, and their impact is considerable.

The elimination of sponsorship hits the festivals broadside. I will give you a few figures: the Just for Laughs festival, $1 million or 10 per cent of its budget; the Montreal and Trois-Rivières Grand Prix and the Montreal film festival, $1.5 million or 16 per cent; the Montreal jazz festival, $1 million or 71.4 per cent; the Benson and Hedges International, the fireworks festival that lights up Montreal once a year; the Players tennis open, half a million dollars or 11 per cent; and the Quebec City summer festival.

It does not take a rocket scientist to understand that all the festivals will be hit hard. They are being threatened by the bill before us. La Presse mentioned a survey taken on September 6 that revealed that 81 per cent of young people would not take up smoking just because they realized an event had been sponsored. Young people are going to start smoking for all sorts of reasons, but certainly not because of sponsorship. It is a matter of education. Rather than take this approach and set up anti-smoking campaigns, the government has gone on a witch hunt. And, as I said before, the festivals in Quebec and in the greater Montreal area will bear the brunt.

Sixty-eight per cent of these people opposed the prohibition of sponsorships, because they could see quite simply that this was not the way to resolve the problem of smoking among young people, or adults, for that matter.

I would like to bring a new argument to the debate: the impact on other festivals. In my region, in the riding of Saint-Jean, we have the Haut-Richelieu hot air balloon festival, the most beautiful of the balloon festivals in Quebec and Canada. My colleague says there are others. There is one in the Outaouais as well, but unfortunately, it lacks the prestige and grandeur of the Festival de montgolfières du Haut-Richelieu. The festival receives $1.5 million in sponsorship. I might perhaps give you some figures before I present my argument.

The number of people going to the hot air balloon festival has substantially risen since its beginning. Attendance was 130,000 in 1993, 160,000 in 1994, 190,000 in 1995, and 250,000 in 1996. Just as the festival is becoming big enough to attract this type of sponsorship, this bill is pulling the rug out from underneath it. The bill says that, from now on, sponsorships will not be allowed, therefore the festival will never be able to get that kind of sponsorship.

Worse than that. This bill will affect not only the hot air balloon festival, but all the other, smaller festivals in Quebec. With $30 million less in sponsorships in Quebec, major festivals are going to turn to the sponsors of smaller festivals, such as the hot air balloon festival in the Haut-Richelieu region, which generates $8 million in economic benefits. This bill has an adverse impact on sponsorships.

This bill is not about health. Personally, I think it is true that in Canada smoking kills many people, the young and the not so young. However, the government should not go as far as prohibiting sponsorships. This threatens not only the major festivals that I mentioned earlier, but also the one in my region.

With economic spinoffs of $8 million and a sponsorship of $1.5 million for the festival in my riding, we cannot afford to be told, in two years from now: "We were thinking of sponsoring your event, but the World Film Festival approached us and we will have to transfer our sponsorship". Sponsors always choose the most prestigious events, and this is understandable.

The big festivals are not the only ones to be affected. I invite the minister, the Prime Minister and all of my colleagues to the hot air balloon festival. I would be very pleased if the Minister of Health did come next summer. Not only will I promise him a ride in a hot air balloon, but we will certainly have a welcoming committee explain to him why the bill is unacceptable and how it is a threat to festivals that are the pride of the regions.

My colleague from Trois-Rivières showed me a message from one of his constituents who is extremely proud of the festival there. She could see that the Trois-Rivières Grand Prix was in jeopardy.

It is the same thing everywhere. In Saint-Jean, we are worried. We ask the minister to back down. If he does not, I hope he will come to Saint-Jean this summer. We will give him an interesting welcome. We will send him up in a hot air balloon and hope that he never comes down.

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the member opposite and other members of the official opposition.

The member said he is tired of listening to the demagoguery of the government members who support Bill C-71. He contends that there is no link between sponsorship promotion and tobacco consumption. It is his party's only argument to justify its position on Bill C-71.

How does the member opposite respond the mounds of studies and information, the substantial evidence that establishes that there is in fact a link between sponsorship promotion and the consumption of tobacco?

The National Cancer Institute of Canada stated: "There is substantial evidence that young people are aware of and respond to cigarette advertising. Advertisements present images that appeal to the young and are seen and remembered by them. Images are used in tobacco marketing rather than information to portray the attractiveness of the function of smoking. The human models and cartoon like characters used in advertising convey independence and strong self-concepts, helpfulness, social acceptance, adventure seeking, attractive role models and youth activities, thus appealing to youth and tapping into area relevant to important development tasks".

What about the information that we receive from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that says: "Evidence from social, psychological and marketing research shows image based advertising such as employed by the cigarette and smokeless tobacco industry is particularly effective with young people and that the information

conveyed by imagery is likely to be more significant to young people than information conveyed by other means in advertising".

The American Psychological Association provided expert opinion with specific citation to numerous studies to show that tobacco advertising plays directly to the factors that are central to children and adolescence and thus plays an important role in their decision to use tobacco. How does the hon. member refute this evidence?

I would be glad for the hon. member's perusal to table this evidence that I am speaking of. The World Health Organization-

[The Speaker]

I know the member inadvertently put some papers on his desk and he is going to take them off.

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was just indicating that I would like to table these documents and I was getting them ready for the page.

The World Health Organization states: "The tobacco industry uses the sponsoring of sports and entertainment to complement and/or replace other marketing activities to reach large audiences and to associate their products with positive images", maybe like balloons-

[The Speaker]

I thank the hon. member. I know that he wants to get into it but I am going to give the other member a chance to answer.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to answer. I was wondering if I had enough time left to do so.

Look, this is not the Canada Cancer Foundation. I, for one, am interested in finding out how people start smoking. In my case, it happened in my backyard. Somebody who was already a smoker came and asked me if I wanted to try. I said yes. There was no psychological trigger, as the North American psychologists association would say. It was not because I saw this brand of cigarettes during the Player's International Tennis Championships or the hot air balloon festival. It had nothing to do with that. We did not care what brand it was. I was not coerced into smoking by tobacco sponsorship.

I thank God that I choked on the first puff and never tried again. This has nothing to do with seeing one brand or another on a billboard. As a matter of fact, some studies prove the reverse of what my colleague said and indicate that it may influence smokers to switch brands.

Those who start smoking have quite a choice of brands: Player's, Du Maurier, Benson & Hedges. Does this mean that young people who go and see fireworks will smoke Benson & Hedges, and those who watch tennis will smoke Player's? That is not the way it works. I beg to differ with my colleague and think that the government has gone too far in banning sponsorship. For us it is a health issue, but is also a sponsorship issue.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the member for Saint-Jean, is generous enough to share his 20 minutes with me.

What I feel like saying about this provision on sponsorships is that the government missed its mark. We agree, the Bloc has always agreed with the purpose, the principle of the bill which is aimed at curbing tobacco use. But as regards these provisions on sponsorships, it seems there is no correlation between them and the stated purpose of the bill or the arguments offered.

Especially since Montreal's cultural and sports events are directly affected, the city having already been dealt a serious blow at the social and economic level as a result of the policies implemented by this government since it came into office. I would be remiss if I did not review them with you. Montrealers are angry because this is like the last straw. This measure would have a devastating impact on Montreal, not only economically but also culturally and socially.

Here is the list. As a result of this government's drastic cuts to unemployment insurance in its very first budget, Montreal was hit with $290 million in cuts in 1995. With the new employment insurance scheme, Montreal will lose another $125 million this year. Benefits will be reduced by $415 million in the Montreal area alone, and by more than $800 million for all of Quebec.

Who is affected by Bill C-29 aimed at banning the additive MMT in gasoline? The Montreal refineries. Who will be affected by the ports' user fees? All the ports on the St. Lawrence River, which will have to pay more than other ports on the Atlantic and the west coast for ice-breaking and dredging. Montreal will be particularly hard hit.

There are as many poor people in Montreal as there are in all the Atlantic provinces combined. Where is our Hibernia project, in which the federal government invested over $2 billion? Where is our bridge to the mainland, our Confederation bridge, built at a cost of $800 million for the 130,000 residents of Prince Edward Island?

Did the federal government build the proposed fast train link between Dorval and Mirabel? No. That was too much money for Montreal.

Given this situation, the government, which has been in power since 1993, comes up, on the eve of the Grand Prix, with provisions that put it in jeopardy. You have seen the outcry from the people involved when that decision was made in Ottawa, in this House,

where the Prime Minister shed a tear for the young Quebecers who smoke more and earlier.

Does he know that there is a strong link between poverty and smoking and does he realize that his government is contributing to the impoverishment of Montreal and Quebec? Will the bill ban clips by their favourite performers if they are smokers? No. Does it prohibit models? And it could not do so anyway. We know that Montreal and Quebec, as well as regions with a high unemployment rate, are those that bore the brunt of the deficit reduction, whether through employment insurance cuts or the Canadian social transfer.

There is a relationship between poverty and smoking. This is true for young people and also for people in other age groups. Yes, Montreal is poor. And it is humiliating to have to come here, to Ottawa, to plead or to be angry with a government that does not care about the plight of people in Montreal, which has an unemployment rate of 15 per cent. Montreal is one of the poorest major cities in Canada and, when the governments stopped funding these cultural and sporting events, we managed to get some sponsorships and to keep alive and vibrant. Now these are being cut under the pretext that young people will start smoking.

I do not want young people to start smoking, but I do not want them to be used as a pretext for a policy that says it is aimed at protecting health, but that, in fact, is an attack on the economy of Montreal and Quebec.

I repeat, it is humiliating to have a decision imposed on us, as the president of the Montreal chamber of commerce said, without any consideration of its immediate impact. The government cannot say that it does not see the economic impact this will have on Montreal.

If the government had been concerned with not creating such an impact on the economy, it would have tried to find some solutions. All the suggestions that were made by the official opposition have been rejected, swept aside and abandoned. No one will convince me that the desired effect is not to harm the economy of Montreal. No one will be able to convince me of that. There is no urgent need for these harmful provisions.

Young people do not start smoking because of advertising, but because of peer pressure.

Sponsorships are being targeted, singled out. The leader of the official opposition asked a very simple question, which is worth repeating. He said: "What will a young person coming back from a tennis tournament ask his parents for: a tennis racket or a pack of cigarettes?" He will ask for a tennis racket and, on top of that, he will be aware of the fact that, if he wants to be any good at a sport that requires so much speed, he had better not smoke. Young people are aware of that.

We feel the joke is on us, a joke of monumental proportions, which is not funny at all, because health is no joking matter. We do agree with the health related principles, but not with the means. We are being forced to choose between what would be a health related objective and events that help young people get by in a context where jobs are scarce, cultural events that attract tourists and promote a degree of economic development without which Montreal would do ever more poorly than it is doing.

Montreal is not doing as well as it should. It used to be the metropolis of Canada, it is the metropolis of Quebec, but it has suffered terribly from this unresolved issue between Quebec and Canada. No metropolis can develop properly without a State with full powers behind it. Montreal does not have this State with full powers behind it and both Montreal and Quebec as a whole are badly off because of it.

This bill is a hit and miss bill. What is hits is Montreal and cultural and sporting events in Quebec, and it hits them hard.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians would want to ask the member if she really believes what she says. Does she really believe that advertising does not have any influence whatsoever on the decision of anyone to use a product? Why would the tobacco companies spend $60 million a year?

She also said that children smoke because other kids smoke. That is a total copout. It is basically saying that is the way it is and that is the way it is always going to be so let us not do anything about. She offers no solutions. She asks why the bill attacks the economy of Montreal. If she is concerned about the economy, and I think she should be, she should be concerned about the 40,000 Canadians who will not be part of the economy next year because they will have died as a result of tobacco. They will not have those jobs. They will not be productive contributors to society for the rest of their lives. That is the part of the economy the member has not recognized as important. The jobs are no good to children when they are dead.

I have a very simple question for the member. If she cannot answer a simple question there is no point in posing others.

Just for Laughs is one Montreal festivals that has said: "Isn't this awful? If we lose our sponsorship we will be gone and all the jobs will be gone". The Montreal Just for Laughs comedy festival receives 10 per cent of its revenue from tobacco. Will the member tell the House today if she honestly believes that Just for Laughs will totally disappear from the face of the earth if the 10 per cent from tobacco is not included in sponsorships?

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I said that I agreed with the objective to fight tobacco use. This fight should, first and foremost, include prevention, and it does.

However, what does this government, which is supposed to be concerned about these 40,000 deaths, propose? A measly $10 million, while the Canada Information Office and others are getting about $67 million per year. If this government really cared about Montreal's economic situation, it would have found ways to make up for this loss.

Needless to say, I care about the health aspect, but I also react to demagoguery and to the fact that young people who are poor smoke more than others. It is not a matter of choosing between poverty and health.

We have to find a successful approach, and such an approach must be based on prevention. Montreal must continue to hold its events. To say that this bill is necessary to avoid 40,000 deaths is simply ridiculous. A solution, a real solution must be found. Until then, I will keep thinking that the goal pursued is really to hurt Montreal and the Province of Quebec.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Mercier for her very eloquent and sensitive testimony on the harmful effects of this legislation on Montreal's economy.

Do I really have only one minute left?

[The Speaker]

More like 17 seconds.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

I will rise again later, because there is something interesting I am eager to tell you. Again, I congratulate the hon. member.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I know what the hon. member for Trois-Rivières wants to tell us. It concerns a letter from one of his constituents, who worked for the Trois-Rivières festival. That person is a non-smoker, but she fully supports our position, because, as she puts it: "The festival provides me with a job and I do not understand why the Liberal government is going after this".

[John Murphy, Liberal, Annapolis Valley—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Scarborough-Rouge River.

Throughout the debate on Bill C-71 we have heard compelling evidence about the dangers of smoking. Tobacco use puts the lives of millions of Canadians at risk every day. Canadians are increasingly aware of the dangers of tobacco use. Consensus has been building for some time on the need for strong, well co-ordinated action to meet this public health challenge head on.

The announcement by the Minister of Health of a comprehensive federal strategy to help protect Canadians from the harmful effects of tobacco is a step to be applauded and supported by all members of the House.

Bill C-71 is an indispensable tool for regulating tobacco advertising and promotion and ultimately for reducing tobacco consumption.

We must recognize that the legislation has as its ultimate goal public health. It is our responsibility as members of Parliament to ensure that it receives quick passage through the House.

This debate has given us a clear picture of the devastating effects of tobacco use on the current generation of Canadian smokers. Just as alarming, however, is the potential devastation awaiting a whole new generation of young Canadians who are taking up smoking at an alarming rate.

I will read a letter I recently received from a grade 5-6 class at L. E. Shaw School in Avonport in my riding of Annapolis Valley-Hants. The teacher wrote:

The grade 5-6 students are very concerned about the effects of smoking on our bodies and the environment. We have also looked at the advertising and the influence it has on people, especially young people.

In their letter they urge me not to support any measures that loosen the restrictions on advertising tobacco products.

As a parliamentarian I have a responsibility to protect their rights and their health. I am pleased to report that the measures included in the bill are an appropriate response to the health threat that smoking poses for the young people of Canada.

Let us begin with what we know about youth and smoking. One in three Canadians smoke. Half of them will ultimately die prematurely of tobacco related diseases. In my own family I have certainly seen this devastation. Youth are the most tragic casualties of tobacco use and addiction. Youth are the most vulnerable to tobacco promotion.

That is why the government's priority in developing the legislation and the overall strategy has been young people. I think we can all agree that young people are certainly the future of the country. We must invest in them by protecting them and by ensuring the safest and healthiest environment for their growth and development.

The statistics, however, show that we have our work cut out for us. Twenty-nine per cent of 15 to 19 year olds and 14 per cent of 10 to 14 year olds are current smokers. Smoking among teens 15 to 19 years of age has increased 25 per cent since 1991. According to the 1994 youth smoking survey, 260,000 kids between the ages of 10 and 19 years were beginner smokers that year.

Figures like these are being replicated in all other countries. These statistics have promoted the World Health Organization to classify youth smoking as a global pediatric epidemic.

What is striking about the evidence on youth smoking is the knowledge among youth about the effects of tobacco use. More than 90 per cent of people between the ages of 10 and 19 believe that tobacco is addictive. A similar percentage believe tobacco smoke in the environment can be harmful to the health of people who do not smoke. I certainly I can attest to that. Despite being clearly aware of the hazards over a quarter of the young people still smoke.

Research indicates a strong association between the smoking habits of youth and the number of friends who smoke. The most common reason cited for starting to smoke is the influence of friends or peer pressure. Eighty-five per cent of all smokers surveyed say they began smoking before they were 16 years of age. A critical time for the smoking decision process appears to be between the ages of 12 and 14. It is no surprise the tobacco companies know this statistic. They need new customers to replace the legions of those who are dying every year from smoking.

Currently the tobacco industry has a voluntary code that prohibits advertising to young people or using advertising with young people pictured in it. However the industry has breached this code time and time again.

The tobacco industry says it does not advertising to encourage youth to take up smoking. It claims it is only to encourage older, established smokers to switch their brands. Young people like those in our gallery are sophisticated enough to understand the point of tobacco company marketing tools.

Some 85 per cent of young smokers and 83 per cent to non-smokers agree that advertising for events sponsored by tobacco companies is a means to directly advertise cigarette brands. I am sure the group of young people in our gallery would agree with those statements.

Despite the claims of the tobacco industry it is clear people in young age smoking groups are more likely to start smoking and to switch brands than older people. Otherwise, why would the tobacco companies support events that are so popular with young people, from sporting events to popular music festivals, to entertainment events? Young people tell us that the use of brand names in tobacco sponsored events acts as an advertisement for tobacco products and smoking as well as for the specific event.

Bill C-71 will respond to the realities and to the tobacco industry's indirect focus on youth. Bill C-71 will restrict the association of tobacco brand names with sponsored events while still allowing tobacco companies to sponsor whatever events they please. The legislation will also control the extent to which young people are exposed to tobacco advertisements and promotions by banning broadcast, billboard, bus panel ads, and counter top displays in stores. In addition, it prohibits the use of tobacco brand names or logos on non-tobacco products that are youth oriented or have lifestyle connotations such as baseball caps and knapsacks.

The legislation will also reduce youth access by banning vending machines and mail out sales and by requiring photo identification to confirm minimum age.

These measures and others in the bill are designed to protect the health of Canadians, particularly young Canadians. Collectively they form a balanced and reasonable piece of legislation that addresses the broad range of factors which contribute to a young person's decision to smoke.

Since the bill was introduced the Minister of Health has consistently reiterated that he would listen to the views expressed in consultation on the bill. The minister has subsequently tabled a series of amendments that demonstrates our government is giving serious consideration to what all parties have to say on this complex issue.

The proposed amendments are straightforward and fall into three categories. Six of the proposals are technical amendments. They simply bring greater precision to some of the terms used in Bill C-71. Four amendments respond to requests by representatives of the tobacco industry that the government clarify its intentions. We have done so in the interests of providing greater certainty to affected parties.

The final amendment responds to the requests made by the arts, cultural and sports community and groups. Some groups expressed concern over what might happen if subclauses 24(2) and (3) took effective immediately upon proclamation. These subclauses restrict the display of tobacco related brand elements and the placement of permanent materials.

The government recognizes that many sponsored events bring important economic benefits to communities. We have therefore agreed to a one-year or two summers implementation period for this portion of the bill only to give affected groups more time to adjust their promotional strategies.

We have introduced these reasonable amendments in a way that will not compromise the integrity of the bill or the government's health objectives. As I said earlier, this bill is about protecting the health of Canadians, particularly young Canadians.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to rise during the question and comment period following the speech made by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants, who stressed the so-called pernicious

effects of sponsorship on our youth and on their decision to take up smoking.

I just received this morning a very nice letter from a resident of my riding who is 18 years old, whom I have never met, whom I do not know and who took the time to e-mail me a letter at 8.45 this morning.

Let me read you the letter sent to me by Lisa-Marie Dupont from Trois-Rivières:

"Mr. Rocheleau,

I saw the position you have taken on the issue of tobacco company sponsorship and I had to tell you that I support it. I am an 18-year-old woman who has lived all her life in Trois-Rivières, which hosts the annual Player's Grand Prix, and I have never smoked a cigarette in my whole life. Moreover, I have volunteered to work in the press room these last two years, an experience which will be very useful when I have to find a good job. It is nonsense to think health depends on sponsorship; the decision to take up smoking or not, especially among the young, is more a matter of education and guidance.

For a city like Trois-Rivières, this kind of event is very important. Tourism picks up considerably, the whole city comes alive with pride and hundreds of volunteers enthusiastically give a helping hand to make this event successful.

Such events give national and international visibility to cities. Is that not a sure advantage in this era of market globalization?

Please do not succumb to the pressures and keep defending your point of view. It is very important to our region.

Signed, Lisa-Marie Dupont".

There is one sentence that I would like to read again for my colleague: "It is nonsense to think health depends on sponsorship; the decision to take up smoking or not, especially among the young, is more a matter of education and guidance". This is quite a change from the shortsightedness, the partisanship and the kind of intolerance shown by government members and also by the health workers lobby-because it is indeed a lobby. I think such a testimony reflects good faith, intelligence, wisdom, balance and common sense.

Common sense is exactly what is lacking in this bill, 80 per cent of which we agree with. The members opposite seem to forget that. What we are opposed to are the sponsorship provisions in this bill, which will have a devastating effect on economic development.

If smoking kills-and I would like my colleague to comment on this-can the lack of jobs, as has been demonstrated, have the same effect? Is it possible that someone who is unemployed will have a tendency to smoke more, which will also contribute to killing him or her? So the public interest will not be served by these shortsighted policies that create more problems than they solve. I would like my colleague to comment on this.

[John Murphy, Liberal, Annapolis Valley—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. First, let me applaud the young person who did not start smoking.

If members remember my speech, we are talking about a health issue here, not one of economics and not one of one-letter lines that indicate one individual.

I put this to my hon. colleague. Why would the tobacco companies spend all these millions on fancy logos for tobacco advertising if they were not trying to entice people to smoke? These people are doing a good service in the sense that they will still be promoting, but, believe me, they are not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. They are doing it mainly because they want to draw young people into the web because others who are dying are leaving the web due to tobacco related diseases.

His argument is not compelling. As a matter of fact it only applauds that one individual who decided to stop smoking.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill on behalf of my constituents. I realize that the bill contains many contentious issues, but its over-arching principle relates to the fact that people are dying in Canada as a direct result of tobacco consumption.

There are lots of ugly statistics related to tobacco consumption. The 1991 figures indicate that 41,000 Canadians died of tobacco related diseases. In Ontario over 12,000 deaths per year are attributed to tobacco. It is projected that over half of today's smokers will die of a tobacco related disease.

It has been said that tobacco is the only product legally available on the market which is lethal when used as the manufacturer intends it to be used. The statistic that half of people smoking today will die from it produces a 50 per cent kill ratio. We do not use them much any more, but there are weapons of war that have a lower kill impact than 50 per cent. This kind of toxicity rates right up there with weapons of war, perhaps with cyanide, perhaps with the depletion of the ozone layer, perhaps with bullets. These are all things that society has to regulate for the general well-being of its citizens.

Principally the bill does four things. It will further limit youth access to tobacco. It will restrict the promotion of tobacco products to youth. It will increase the health information on packages related to tobacco consumption. Finally, it will establish powers to further regulate the sale and consumption of tobacco products.

Much of that regulatory activity already exists in legislation. However, the bill will improve or refine existing legislation.

A lot of discussion has taken place about the impact of this legislation on public events which are sponsored by tobacco companies. These events are sponsored as part of the advertising campaigns of the tobacco companies. As someone said earlier, why would tobacco companies spend $66 million a year on advertising if there was not a benefit? They advertise because it enhances the profitability of their enterprises.

With respect to the impact on public events which are currently sponsored by tobacco advertisers, it is not just an Ontario issue, it is not just a Quebec issue, it is not just a Toronto issue or a Vancouver issue. I am disappointed that the tobacco companies and the lobbyists are wrapping themselves in the flag of Quebec. I do not think it is helpful to us in the House. I do not think it is useful for Canadians to see an issue that way.

I accept that a large amount of money is spent in the city of Montreal on these events. As a representative of my area, I have been shown the large amount of money spent in the Toronto area on these events. People do come from all over the place to see and to participate in the events. We have heard the names: the Benson & Hedges Symphony of Fire, the du Maurier Jazz Festival.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Good advertising for them.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

I am not afraid. I am going to speak to that later. I am not embarrassed to mention the name of a tobacco company. I am not even afraid to hold a cigarette in my hand. I do not smoke. We have to be careful that we do not demonize in our society. We do not want to demonize things the way we did with firearms. Good people have firearms. Good people smoke and let us recognize that.

There happens to be a jazz festival in Toronto. There happens to be jazz festivals in Montreal and in Vancouver and a tobacco company happens to sponsor part of the costs. It is a good thing that the jazz festival happens. I want to see those events continue. The government recognizes that there could be a difficult period of adjustment. It has allowed two summers of adjustment. Technical provisions in the bill may further complicate the adjustment. Perhaps the minister's regulatory authority will be able to smooth that over.

As an MP I will be working with others in my community to make sure these events can continue without the high level of tobacco advertising support that they currently have. That does not mean that there cannot be any tobacco advertising support, but under this bill a lot of that support will be reduced.

We have two seasons to work on this. I hope we will have some success. I commend the tobacco companies to the route that says get creative, work within the law and advertise their product to the extent that it is legal. I exhort them to stay away from our youth, but I do not have any problems with attending a festival that happens to have a tobacco company sponsor.

I found it disappointing to hear references in the media over the last couple of days about the impending cancellation this weekend involving an Australian auto racing event. It is almost unbelievable to think that an advertising agency would consider doing this.

This bill has not even left the House yet, let alone to get into the other place. It is not even law yet and someone is saying we are going to have to punish the people of Canada for considering this. We are going to punish the people who are fans of driver Villeneuve. We are going to victimize Canadians because they are considering this legislation.

I was very disappointed by that. Shame on those who conceived of this as a way of influencing us. Hopefully the event will still be publicized and the fans of Jacques Villeneuve will get to see him.

I want to comment on the insertion in the bill of a provision that allows the House to review regulations put in place by the minister. This is the first bill that I recall in some time that has such a provision. I want to commend the member for Lambton-Middlesex for her drafting and moving of this provision. It is a concurrence provision that may be the precursor of others which we may wish to make use of in the House of Commons, given the extremely high volume of delegated regulatory authority not just in this bill but in many other bills. Once we delegate that authority rarely do members see the regulations again. This amendment will allow the regulations created under this bill to come before the House for our approval.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

You had better give credit where credit is due.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

I am giving credit to all members who participated in this initiative.

Having been goaded by some members earlier, I raised that fact that I was little uncomfortable with the atmosphere that demonizes people who smoke. I know we are not trying to do so, but in an effort to spin up the politics and get the bill passed we can say smoking is bad for our health. In fact it is lethal. We must recognize that there are many good people out there who are addicted. We must look for soft landings for people who are addicted.

I close by saying that tobacco is now seen as an enemy of the people. It has taken us 400 years since Sir Walter Raleigh to get that far. Let us realize what it is. Let us recognize other countries

such as France and the United States care about the health of their citizens and are doing the same. I am prepared to support the bill.

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by reminding my colleague of what he just said, about being disappointed, about being shocked, about the media being used to underline the impact of the bill on events and economic activities, about how people are going around attracting attention.

The actions of his own colleague, the Minister of Health, have been raised in the House, and this is in the hands of the Speaker. Even before the bill has been passed, the minister has filled pages in the newspapers with his references to the "act", not the "bill" but the "act". He is referring to Bill C-71 as though it were already enacted. What is shocking is not so much that people are attracting attention, but that a minister is using the word "act" when the bill has not even been passed here in Parliament. That is what is shocking, not the other way around.

I would like to remind members that not only did the official opposition vote in favour of the principle of the bill at second reading, but that it worked in committee and presented no fewer than 32 amendments in order to take a proactive stance in the fight against smoking. What did the government do? It rejected our amendments. It did not see the worth of our proactive amendments to combat smoking, did not think they could be useful to it. Why? Because it rejects everything out of hand. This government is intransigent and rejects the contribution of others out of hand.

The other extremely important point is that we tried to draw this government's attention to the direct consequences of $30 million in economic spinoffs for events, not in order to distract it from the fight against smoking, and to get it to see that in many countries provision has been made for transition. It is possible to negotiate, to allow transitional measures.

Australia did and France is preparing to relax its bill to make an exception for major events. Austria is doing likewise. In Hungary, an exception is made for major events. In Belgium, a bill has just been introduced that makes an exception for sports and related events. This government has demonstrated its intransigence in this regard and it is here that we would like to see the government take a more responsible attitude.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises the issue of transition as an important part of legislation which requires adjustment. That is a very good point. It is a very good point. We need transition for our tobacco farmers and there is something happening now for them in terms of transition.

On the advertising issue, the hon. member will recognize that the bill has a two-summer delay before implementation to allow for

adjustment on some of the advertising prohibitions. I know the frustration of an opposition member when the government does not seem to move. I sat over there for a long five years. Sometimes we win and sometimes we do not.

I am delighted to know the official opposition endorses the bill in principle. It is up to the official opposition whether or not it gets hung up on all the details. The principle is very much there and I am pleased to see the opposition endorses it and hopefully will vote for the bill at third reading.

Business Of The House

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I believe there have been consultations among the parties for the following motion. I move:

That, when the House adjourns on Thursday, March 13, 1997, it shall stand adjourned until Monday, March 17, 1997.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is there unanimous consent for the parliamentary secretary to move the motion?