Debates of Oct. 8th, 1998

Tobacco Act

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will respond to that. The member speaks as though the bill is the only step we are taking in relation to tobacco.

The bill represents a few sections in a statute which is elaborate, comprehensive and powerful. It empowers the government to regulate tobacco as a product. It makes it an offence to sell tobacco to kids under age 18. It puts the tightest restrictions on advertising as well as dealing with sponsorship.

The member ought not to pretend that Bill C-42 is the only step we are taking against tobacco. It is a small part of a large strategy. I remind the member that the government will also be spending $100 million and enormous energy over the next five years to persuade young children not to smoke.

I have a 13 year old daughter and two 11 year old sons and I am as concerned as anyone that they not become addicted to tobacco. I will take every step I can to ensure that they do not. I want the help of governments across the country in achieving that objective.

I do not want the member to pretend that this is all, because it is only part of a very large strategy.

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. minister has spoken. He said that they will spend $100 million on education programs.

Where I come from people have an expression “Put your money where your mouth is”. How much money will the government take in revenue every time it spends $100 million in five years? The problem is that a very small percentage of the revenue taken is being spent on educational purposes to prevent smoking. Yet they are filling the coffers of the government on the backs of healthy young people and are spending a mere percentage of what is taken in. That is why—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Just like question period, when your 35 seconds are up your time is up.

That last exchange was getting fairly close to innuendo which was not strictly parliamentary. I was listening to it, but I want to make the point that at no time were any comments made that were specifically directed to specific individuals. In the opinion of the Chair there was nothing in any of the exchanges which was out of order.

[Rick Casson, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today after the recent exchange. It is nice to have a minister in the House. He is looking rather relaxed and cool these days. We have not been after him very much, but that too will change. He can obviously pose a question as well. It was nice to see that.

We are here to talk about Bill C-42, the bill to amend the Tobacco Act. It provides a five year phased in transition period toward a prohibition of tobacco sponsorship promotion.

My constituents in Lethbridge have talked to me about the bill. They are concerned with keeping harmful products, particularly tobacco, away from youth. I received a number of letters, phone calls and visits to my office indicating that we have to keep our kids away from this stuff.

Tobacco comes in many forms. Chewing tobacco has become popular. When I think back to when I was a youth I smoked for a number of years. I do not smoke now. I have not smoked for 12 or 15 years. Some days around here I am about half an hour away from starting again, but I hope I never do.

I still remember the flashy full colour ads on the back of magazines and billboards such as the Marlboro man. More and more the advertising was scoped to youth. Tobacco companies saw where their future was and they targeted them.

At first glance when the bill was introduced we felt it was good, that the bill would restrict advertising to young people and help protect the youth of Canada. As we started to study it and see the phase in part of it and the fact that there is no firm date to start, it began to lose some of its lustre.

The fact remains that tobacco companies are huge, powerful forces in the world. They have lots of money. They can crank up advertising agencies across North America to target whomever they wish.

I think it has been said that advertising on Formula One race cars is one of the most highly visible places in the world to advertise. It attracts young people. The fact that the bill was introduced was great, but on the one hand the government is trying to show that it cares about health and about young people and on the other hand is still taking tax money from the sale of tobacco.

The government has slowed down the process so that it could keep the revenue flow going while still looking like it is championing this act. As originally intended it was good and it would have done what we wanted. Slowly it has looked to us like the government is dragging its feet and will not move on this.

I have talked with people in convenience stores and corner markets who sell cigarettes. They do not have a problem with any legislation. Some good legislation has been brought in so that they cannot sell tobacco to minors. The other day a person indicated that it was an offence if young people asked for the price of cigarettes and it was given.

Lots of things have been done. To do that on one end and still allow the phase in time for advertising just does not add up. If we are serious about keeping these products away from our young people and if we are serious about the health of Canadians, let us start as soon as we can. Let us not extend this phase in program and let us do the job.

Regarding education, the minister said that $100 million over the next period of time would be spent to educate young people on the hazards of smoking. The hon. member who spoke before me referred to the personal tragedy he saw because of cigarette smoking in his family. I think we can relate to that. We have all had family, friends or neighbours who have suffered because of it.

Smoking is an addiction and something not to expose our children to, but it is a product that can be legally bought when someone becomes 18. I guess there are ways of getting them before then. To allow the advertising, to encourage it to happen, is wrong. We should work very hard in our approach to changing that.

The Reform Party certainly would support protection for youth from being targeted for tobacco products. We would encourage the government to have another look at it and to implement its policies as quickly as it can.

There is the whole public relations aspect of what is happening whereby the government has legislation before us that would keep tobacco out of the hands of children. It is making a lot of noise about the subject, but it is taking a long time to implement it. In the meantime it is still reaping benefits from the sale of tobacco. We would like to see this aspect changed.

If the minister were serious about the legislation, he would put it into motion. Let us not move the deadline to start implementation further and further away. Let us get it into law now.

Regarding the whole sponsorship agreement, advertising can be targeted to any sector of society. We can target young people. We can target the baby boomers, whomever we wish. There are ways to poll people to find out what people are interested in. The agencies can design advertising to do that.

As far as adults are concerned, if I choose to start smoking tomorrow, who will stop me besides my own personal thoughts? However we have to help our young people today realize that smoking is causing problems.

I go to quite a few rodeo events during the summer and I see young people with a round can of chewing tobacco in their back pocket. It gets to become a trademark: if you have one of those you are macho. Where does the idea come from that chewing tobacco is cool? It comes from advertising. We saw a few years ago the different forms in which this product was packaged to appeal to young people.

Let us have a picture of a cancerous lip or a young man or woman with throat cancer or stomach cancer from this stuff. Let us make them aware that aside from the glorified side that is advertised and portrayed there is a side that is dangerous and can harm them.

I reiterate that if the legislation moves forward and prohibits advertising directed at youth the answer would be to do it quickly. The phased in program leaves it open to interpretation. While the government is holding off from implementing the legislation it continues to reap the benefits of tobacco sales. Let us stop that aspect of it. Let us truly target advertising directed at young people and get on with the bill.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my hon. colleague and would like to ask him a question.

In the speech I made earlier I indicated that the government was cowardly in bringing in legislation which limits the advertising of cigarettes. It is something that I agree with in principle. I do not think we should be allowing a process that encourages young people to start smoking. However, the government is cowardly in doing that without also declaring that tobacco is a dangerous substance.

By labelling it so, the government would then have the moral and legal right to actually limit that advertising. Otherwise it runs into the question of being challenged under the human rights protection act or whatever in terms of limiting freedom of speech when it says to a company that produces and markets a legitimate product that it cannot advertise its product. Presumably the product is 100% legitimate. It is even subsidized by the Government of Canada. It seems to me that there is an anomaly.

Would the member for Lethbridge comment on that? Would he also favour declaring it a dangerous substance and going all out to stop this cancer on our society, with a pun intended there?

[Rick Casson, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Elk Island. It is a dangerous substance. We can call it whatever we wish, but the proof is in that it does cause disease. It causes all kinds of problems, lung problems and cancer. I believe most of the product is labelled today to indicate that smoking cause lungs cancer.

On one hand to label the product and try to discourage the use of it but on the other hand to allow glitzy advertising through any means possible to get the word out that it is there and is to be used is a conflict.

The hon. member is right. We say it is a dangerous product and label it as such because it contains all things that will hurt people. There are warnings on the packages that pregnant women should not smoke and that it will cause lung cancer. Then let us realize that and not allow advertising of a dangerous product.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments.

Earlier we heard the Minister of Health speak on this bill. He talked about how good it was, how people from other countries are singing the praises of this bill and how it is to be duplicated, replicated by other nations, that they are clamouring at the doors for this piece of legislation. While perhaps well intentioned, I do not agree with the premise in his argument that this bill goes far enough.

As a former teacher I taught grade seven students for a number of years. Sadly, a number of them did start smoking at the very young ages of 10, 11 and 12 years old.

Does my colleague think this bill goes far enough and quickly enough to make the necessary changes to stop young people from getting involved in this habit which is so devastating?

[Rick Casson, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I might have alluded to that somewhat in my presentation. When we first saw this legislation come through we felt that this would stop the advertising. As we got into it, we realized that there was a phase-in period. The time when it will start has not been set.

We need to move quickly. Every day that goes by is a day lost to stop this practice. We should do it, but we should it now. This phase-in time is not necessary. If we are serious about protecting young people, then let us get serious and do it.

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debate. Frankly anyone watching this debate would wonder whether or not the members who have been speaking actually understand what this legislation is intended to do.

It amends the most progressive legislation in the western world and it creates an ultimate ban on sponsorship promotion within five years. That is applauded and lauded by all of those who know that Canada has had an enviable record worldwide. That should be acknowledged by the members opposite.

Why will they not stand and acknowledge the progressive record of this government in dealing with these important issues of public policy?

[Rick Casson, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, something that will probably not happen is for us to stand in this place and congratulate the government on this.

I made the point previously. If we are going to be serious about the health situation, if we want to be the big leaders in the world, and the government claims it is, then let us get serious about it. Let us not say that we are going to have a five year phase-in period. From when? It should have started years ago. It should be in effect right now.

Maybe it is the most progressive bill, but it is progressing further and further down the line. If the government wants to be the guardian of all that is righteous, it should start doing that right now.

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have been involved in the business of education for a number of years. I am surprised with the advertising and the means by which young people are getting tobacco products. Does my hon. colleague not see that there are more and more young people, particularly young girls, smoking cigarettes now than there was during my time in the field of education?

[Rick Casson, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yes there is. It is obvious from the stats, and it is especially young girls. It is all part of the strategy that has been put in place to attract certain sectors of our society to smoke. We have seen this increase recently.

This legislation should be implemented as quickly as possible. Had the five year phase-in program started a year ago, we would have been into it. We should not have the phase-in period. There is no firm date established by the government as to when that five years will start. It is important that we start as soon as we can.

[Howard Hilstrom, Reform, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder why the government is so reluctant to take a strong stand on tobacco use. Why does it not bring forward legislation that is really progressive in the idea of not only preventing smoking, but to absolutely outlaw advertising totally.

I suppose industry giants, corporations are influencing the government. I think this is one issue where the average Canadian would stand behind the government and say that this time the corporations do not get their way.

The tobacco farmers of southern Ontario can grow tremendous crops, healthy crops such as vegetables and grains that do some good for Canadians. In the hon. member's opinion, should the government choose the health of Canadians over the corporations in this case?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Before the member for Lethbridge responds, I remind everyone to please address questions and comments to each other through the Chair.

[Rick Casson, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, the average Canadian relies on the government for those types of things. Far too many times the government is worried about getting into other areas, but basic health, basic protection are things Canadians should expect.

Right now we are facing a crisis in the agricultural sector. My colleague from Selkirk—Interlake is very well aware of that. We have had discussions in our caucus over the last few days about exactly what can be done. The government needs to be involved in some areas and it does not need to be involved in other areas.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to make a very short intervention on this bill. We have heard debate on the bill. I was very pleased earlier to see the Minister of Health get involved in the debate. I am going to ask the minister to get involved again.

We heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health say that this legislation will eventually lead to an ultimate ban. She used those terms. I have a concern, because while the government is talking tough, we have seen absolutely nothing from the government. We do not know whether it is going to carry through. I think it is accurate to say that this is the first time in Canadian history we have seen a government actually back off and get weaker in this area.

I would like to see the minister's real commitment on this issue. I really want to test the minister's commitment and ask him two questions.

Will the minister direct all revenue from tobacco, or at least any extra revenue that his government will receive as a result of the phase-in as opposed to immediate implementation, not to general revenue but to prevention and health care? That is the first question.

The second question I would like the minister to respond to is will the minister pledge that his party and all candidates in the next federal election and any byelection will not take a penny from the tobacco lobby or individuals involved in the tobacco lobby?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

This is certainly an interesting twist on debate. Before we get too far into it, I would ask members again to address each other through the chair.

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the member is terribly wrong. He said that this government has done nothing, yet when the Supreme Court of Canada invalidated the old Tobacco Act, struck it down, said it was invalid, the former Minister of Health, the one who preceded me, introduced the Tobacco Act.

I have already said to the House that it is considered a model internationally. It is tough, it is smart and it is effective, and it is going to help enormously in keeping cigarettes out of the hands of kids. In addition, the Tobacco Act that was passed in this place in April 1997 permitted tobacco companies to continue sponsoring events and putting their names in front of the public. It would have allowed them to do that forever, although only on the bottom 10% of signs.

The member suggested that the bill now before the House weakens that act. It does anything but. It strengthens the act by introducing the notion that in five years tobacco companies will have to stop altogether sponsoring and promoting events. The member has it wrong. We are doing the right thing. He should support this legislation.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know this is not question period. I know the minister does not have to answer but I appreciate his getting up on questions and comments to make some comments. I asked two questions. If the minister is going to respond, he should answer those questions. Canadians would really appreciate hearing his response to those questions.

Will the minister commit any extra revenue his government will get as a result of the phase-in as opposed to immediate full implementation to prevention and health care to deal with the problem? Will he commit that any candidate running for the Liberal Party at the time of the next election or any candidate running in a byelection will not take one penny from the tobacco lobby?

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, York North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to this debate and noting the great passion expressed by the members on the other side in their concern for children's health. This is somewhat contradictory and puzzling in relation to their positions on other issues that affect children's health.

For example, many experts say that climate change will have a greater impact on children's health than it will have on any other demographic age group. Yet members opposite seem to have the official stand on climate change that it does not exist. I wonder how on one issue they can be concerned about the health of children, yet on another very important issue on which there is a consensus by people around the globe the member's party seems to object.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate this question and I mean that so sincerely.

We stood here in the House in the last session when the Kyoto deal was being talked about and we asked the environment minister time after time, day after day to show the study the government is basing Canada's position on that indicates man plays any role in climate change and to bring that evidence forward. We wanted to see it and we still want to see it.

The member talks about the harm from climate change. We know that climate change has happened throughout history. We know from records that have been left that climate change has happened. However, when it comes to evidence that man plays a significant role in any way in climate change, I would like the member to cite her sources so I can look into this evidence as well.

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, York North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize sincerely to this House for heckling but as I indicated in my heckling I find it rather disturbing that the members of the Reform Party can choose the issues they feel are important in terms of children's health while they ignore a whole pile of other issues that affect children's health. They can be quite happy about regulating on certain kinds of issues that affect children's health but they choose to ignore a whole pile of other issues.

I would be more than happy to drown the member on the opposite side with volumes and volumes of evidence on the effects of climate change and how it would impact on children and our grandchildren.

Perhaps I could suggest that the hon. member contact the Canadian Institute of Children's Health and it could provide all kinds of detail for that member.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by asking the member who did not respond by giving me even one single source—

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, with all due respect, this is not question period, this is debate. The member opposite has inappropriately—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

That is not a point of order.