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.