Debates of Sept. 30th, 1998

Questions On The Order Paper

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am inquiring today about Question No. 91. The question was asked on March 27, 1998. The time has long passed since it should have been answered. The question relates to the use of the antimalarial drug mefloquine by the Canadian forces in Somalia.

It would seem to be a straightforward question. The Minister of Health should know what his responsibilities are under the act and I would like to know when I can expect an answer to this question.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have noted the member's interest in Question No. 91. I have noted the date on which it was presented. I will look into the matter as soon as I possibly can.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Shall the remaining questions stand?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Motions For Papers

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, ten months ago, I tabled a notice of motion for the production of papers, Notice P-10 to be precise, concerning the relocation of the Lac-Mégantic HRDC centre.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government give me a rational explanation for taking so long, more than ten months, simply on the relocation of a mini HRDC office?

Like the member for Frontenac—Mégantic, the people of Lac-Mégantic are starting to think that the government is not as white as snow on this issue.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member's great interest in Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. P-10. I know that it concerns Mégantic. I assure him, as I did the previous member, that I will look into this matter as soon as I possibly can.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in light of the lack of good will displayed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government, I ask you to please call Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers P-10.

That an Order of the House do issue for copies of: ( a ) the public notices about the recent relocation of the Lake Megantic Human Resources Development Centre and ( b ) all other documents concerning the details of the agreement on the occupation of the current premises.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that this Motion for the Production of Papers be transferred for debate.

[The Deputy Speaker]

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

Shall the remaining Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers stand?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Tobacco Act

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, for the Minister of Health]

moved that Bill C-42, an act to amend the Tobacco Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to begin in this House the second reading debate on Bill C-42.

Bill C-42 is a short bill. It is a simple bill. It proposes an amendment to the Tobacco Act and focuses on one aspect of the tobacco issue, and one issue alone, and that is the promotion of tobacco products through the sponsorship of events.

What the bill does is straightforward. It will toughen the existing Tobacco Act. It will take a piece of legislation that is already one of the strongest in the world and make it even stronger.

The bill would ban the promotion of tobacco sponsorships following a five year transition period. Although the bill is short, it is not an isolated action. It builds on the enormous step forward which our government took in proposing the Tobacco Act and which the last parliament took in passing the legislation.

That act, members will recall, takes aim squarely at the number one cause of preventable death and disease in Canadian society. Its goal is to protect and promote the health of all Canadians. It is aimed specifically at keeping children and young people from starting to smoke.

The health facts are clear. Last year more than 40,000 Canadians died of tobacco related illnesses. That means that each day, on average, more than 100 Canadians died with tobacco standing in the background. Many of those people died of heart disease. Others died of lung disease. Still others fell victim to cancer or some of the many other illnesses that have their roots in the use of tobacco products.

There are some worrisome trends that could add to that toll over time. The percentage of young people between the ages of 15 and 19 who smoke has actually risen in recent years. We need to take continued and effective action to reverse those trends.

However, we must approach this in a way that recognizes that tobacco is a unique product, yet we simply cannot ban it. Tobacco is addictive and over time it is often deadly. It has made its way throughout our culture and indeed cultures throughout the world.

The reality is that to combat something that pervasive, simplistic solutions simply do not work. For that reason the federal government's approach to tobacco control has included a variety of elements. Legislation, educational programs and taxation have all been part of this mix.

Increasingly we have taken steps to affect other aspects of the process that lead young people to smoke. An important focus of the Tobacco Act was to cut the exposure of young Canadians to tobacco promotion. Tobacco advertising had been prohibited for some time and the Tobacco Act continues restrictions in a manner that we believe reflects the charter of rights and freedoms.

However, as traditional advertising avenues were closed off to the tobacco industry they seized on the use of event sponsorships and promotions.

According to research, the people who market tobacco products are no different from those marketing any other product. They all seek to understand consumer behaviour, especially the behaviour of consumers who are likely to start using their product. We know they are studying the various factors involved in making the decision to smoke.

So who are they studying? Something like 90% of all smokers start before they are 20 years old, usually well before. In fact we can even say as young as 12. So they must logically be an important target.

Like all marketers, these tobacco people want potential customers to associate their brands with positive images. More than that they want to get their product names in front of as many people as possible. They want tobacco products to be linked to events and activities that people enjoy.

With less and less recourse to traditional advertising, association with sports, cultural and other community events has become very important. Events take on cigarette names. Posters and billboards advertising them are everywhere. Therefore people, especially young people, become familiar with the brands, the logos and the overall presence of tobacco in our society.

We might say in this regard that familiarity breeds contempt, not by itself and not in a simple, direct and crystal clear line, yet there it is. There are many factors that influence a 15 year old's decision to smoke. There are many steps between a first puff and a consistent pack a day addiction. But the research indicates that event promotion is a very significant factor in the overall smoking decision process of our young people. Tobacco brand names can seem to become innocuous, present everywhere, as if they were a normal consumer product.

In making these points about the health impacts of smoking or the importance of event marketing to the tobacco industry, I am simply restating some important points that were made during the debate on the Tobacco Act in the last parliament. Perhaps more important, I am simply restating points that were made on both sides of the House and in the other place in that debate.

This House has historically demonstrated its awareness that smoking kills. Historically it has demonstrated that its support for measures to cut tobacco use by young people are correct and necessary.

The same was true with the Tobacco Act. Mr. Speaker, I am sure you recall the outcome of that debate. Reformers, New Democrats and Progressive Conservatives stood with us on it. They stood with the 91% of Canadians who support efforts by government to discourage young people from becoming addicted to tobacco. They stood with the 73% of Canadians who support efforts to discourage smoking among people who already smoke.

It was only the Bloc that opposed the Tobacco Act, and that was largely because of concerns about the impact of sponsorship restrictions on events. Now that the Parti Quebecois government has moved in the same direction as we moved a year ago, I am confident that opposition will change there as well.

Of course, some people outside this parliament expressed concerns about sponsorship restrictions. Event organizers were concerned that they would not be able to line up new sponsors quickly enough. Some people in communities that look to these events for tourism dollars were concerned about the possible loss of those marquee events.

A particular area that drew some attention was the impact of the Tobacco Act on motor sports. If you have ever watched a race you will have noticed that every possible space is adorned with advertising: the cars, the racing suits, the facilities. They are all full of logos of sponsors. Those logos are often of tobacco brands that Canadians, Americans, Europeans and Asians use. Because of the concerns of event organizers it was agreed that the federal government would take another look at tobacco sponsorship and motor sports. But I must add that this should never have been seen as a carte blanche to water down our commitment to reduce tobacco use.

At that time we said that we would respect the charter of rights and freedoms, that we would respect international standards and that we would respect the health obligations and objectives of the Tobacco Act. As we consulted we heard from event organizers and we heard from health groups that were concerned with the potential influence of sponsorship on young people.

Through the process we remained determined to make this act even more solid than it was already. In the end we decided that we could not and would not create one set of rules for some motor sports events and another for everyone else. We recognized that we did and had to treat all currently sponsored events equally.

We also determined that we were being presented with an opportunity to really fine-tune the sponsorship provisions of the Tobacco Act, and the result is Bill C-42.

I will now turn to the regime the bill sets out.

At the core of this bill is a five year transition period. During that time we will move to a total ban on the display of tobacco brand elements in sponsorship promotions.

There are two types of events for the purpose of this bill. The first type includes events that were in existence and had tobacco company sponsors before April 25, 1997. If parliament agrees, these events would begin with a two year period under the status quo. Tobacco promotion would be able to continue for that two years and we would continue to allow off site and on site promotions.

The next phase for those grandfathered events would last three years. On site promotions involving tobacco product related brand elements would continue at those events, but these promotions could only be in place for the duration of the event. We would close off opportunities for off site promotion and we would impose a 90:10 rule that appears in the Tobacco Act on those that are permitted. That is to say, only the bottom 10% of the space in the promotional material can display tobacco brand elements.

Direct mailings to identified adults would be permitted, but banners with large tobacco logos on lampposts all over town would not be. Advertizing in publications with primarily adult readership would be permitted, but placement in corner stores of posters with cigarette names in bold, big type would end. Promotions such as tent cards in bars, which are legally off limits to young people, would be acceptable, but the same tent cards in regular restaurants would not be.

In short we would cut the tobacco marketers' off-site access to young people dramatically. That stage would end after three years, as I said. That brings us to five years from the date this amendment to the Tobacco Act would come into force. On that date, tobacco sponsorship promotions would end.

The second group of events are those in which sponsorships began on or after April 25, 1997. Those events will not be grandfathered. The restrictions currently in the Tobacco Act would apply to these events and after five years, the days of complacent sponsorship promotions will end.

Under the timetable that we hope parliament will allow us to pursue, in the latter part of the year 2003 there will be a total ban on tobacco sponsorship promotions whether on-site or off-site. There will be no legal ability to display tobacco related product brand elements on sponsorship promotions. Tobacco brand elements will not be associated with permanent arts and sports facilities.

That ban is more than even the Tobacco Act originally envisaged. That act would have simply brought in the 90-10 rule as a new status quo.

We have gone one step further in protecting the health of Canadians by cutting any ties between appealing and wholesome activities and tobacco consumption.

Some may ask why we have decided on a period of five years. The five year transition period provides event organizers with plenty of time and plenty of opportunities to seek alternative sponsors. In our consultations with those organizers, it was clear that if we were determined to eliminate the use of sponsorship as a promotional vehicle for tobacco products, and we are, then they wanted time to make alternative arrangements and they could. In fact I know that process has already begun.

For example, we as a government are very pleased that Air Canada will become the new title sponsor of the Formula One Canadian Grand Prix next year. We believe that the five year time frame will allow other event organizers to demonstrate to other potential sponsors how valuable an association with their event can be.

If this was all we were doing on tobacco control, it would be noteworthy enough. Yet we are actually doing far more and that is why Canada is recognized as a world leader in tobacco control. Indeed we keep track of the steps that other governments are taking on this issue. I want to tell my hon. colleagues on both sides of this chamber that our approach is consistent with evolving international standards. Let me offer some examples.

The European Union recently announced that it is moving in the same direction as we are. It intends to ban tobacco sponsored promotions by the year 2006. It intends to pursue a transitional strategy on the way to that ban.

Australia announced last week that it too will totally prohibit tobacco sponsored promotions by the year 2006.

The United States is moving ahead on actions that will limit the exposure of children to tobacco promotion in ways that are consistent with much that is already in our Tobacco Act.

Canada is on a course to beat them all. Our legislation is among the toughest and most far reaching in the world. The initiatives that the Tobacco Act enables us to take include the regulation of the product, its components and emissions, more comprehensive reporting requirements for tobacco companies and stricter regulations on sales of tobacco products to minors.

It is also backed up by our continuing efforts to promote and protect health through anti-tobacco initiatives. For example last June we announced $100 million in spending on the tobacco control initiative. We are proud of that. That money followed through on a commitment that our government made during last year's election. It was a commitment that we were proud to keep because it was really an investment in the health of Canadians.

The tobacco control initiative is co-ordinated and it is comprehensive. It pays particular attention to tobacco use among children and teens, groups vulnerable to taking up smoking.

Reducing the health damage caused by tobacco consumption is increasingly an issue, not only for the federal government but for our colleagues in the provincial governments as well.

A New Democratic government in British Columbia has taken legal steps against tobacco companies because of the costs their products place on the health care system. In Quebec, the Parti Quebecois government has passed strong legislation that among other things restricts tobacco sales to minors and the promotion of tobacco products.

Both provincial strategies complement our own actions at the federal level. They complement our legislative and health promotion approaches. They demonstrate, just as the history of tobacco control legislation does here, that this is not a partisan issue. It is a health issue.

After all, that is the purpose of this bill, a short and straightforward piece of legislation that establishes a new and stricter framework for tobacco promotion through sponsorship and paves the way for the elimination of sponsorship by the year 2003.

It positions us to be heard and be ahead of the United States, most European states and Australia, all countries that have their own solid records on tobacco control.

The action that this bill proposes, together with the restrictions set out in the Tobacco Act as well as our tobacco control initiative are individual parts of a unified strategy.

We are continuing to work and invest significant resources to reduce smoking in Canada. We are taking action that we hope and believe will help reduce the percentage of young people who take up smoking.

This bill then is ultimately about the health of Canadians. It is about making a strong piece of legislation even stronger, all the while making it more realistic. It is a bill that I believe merits the support of all parties in this House.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

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 Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, APEC Summit; the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona, Trade.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to share my speaking time with the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Does the hon. member for Macleod have the consent of the House to split his time? It would be 20 minutes each.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I speak today on Bill C-42, I would like to say that because it is a health issue it is certainly a non-partisan issue. One thing that my constituents have asked of me as I come here is to try not to critique just for the sake of critiquing. I think the public expectation of agreement where health is at stake is a fairly universal one.

I was a little surprised not to see the Minister of Health rise to speak to this bill. I have gone back and looked in Hansard , in that tobacco bills are fairly major pieces of legislation, and I have not found another indication where the health minister had not done so. In fact, I went back just today to look at what happened on tobacco control in the last government prior to the last parliament. I wanted to make a comparison and of course, the health minister of that day, Jake Epp, was here in person. I think that was an interesting omission.

On tobacco, we should judge not by rhetoric so much as by actual results. I noted a few quotes from the member for Waterloo—Wellington as he went through his speech. I would like to repeat these quotes. “This bill will toughen the Tobacco Act” and “This should never be seen as an attempt to water down our commitment to reduce youth smoking”.

I went back 10 years almost exactly, to 1987 and the second reading debate on the tobacco bill that was being passed then. I found quotes that are eerily similar. If I might quote from Jake Epp on Bill C-51, “The government has concluded that legislation banning all tobacco product advertising is the only acceptable option”.

On that day and during the process that followed, the government did in fact undertake to ban all advertising of tobacco products. How have we done? What I would like to review today is how we have done with those noble goals we set out on back in 1988.

Bill C-51 banned all tobacco ads. If I did not miss it, I think that is what we are doing again today. It is only 10 years hence. It is 10 years down the road. So how have we done? What happened to Bill C-51? It was considered a breakthrough. Sponsorship would only be allowed in corporate names. Sponsorship would not be allowed so that companies could sponsor and children would make a direct connection.

There was a very rapid incorporation of brand names. They became corporate names. The law was circumvented. It was circumvented so fast it would make one's head spin.

In September 1995 Bill C-51 was struck down saying that it was too restrictive on the freedom of the companies involved. We moved on to April 1997 where Bill C-71 came along, a Tobacco Act which banned advertising, this time directed at our youth. It would be tough to disagree with that.

My party and I supported that bill. We supported it vigorously. In fact we prevented procedural wrangling as we supported it. Sponsorship in Bill C-71 would be banned tomorrow, the day after today. I am not speaking figuratively. On October 1, 1998 sponsorship would be banned if Bill C-71 was passed.

I hark back to the quote from the member who said that this should not be misconstrued as weakening our resolve directed toward youth. I say judge by the results, not by the rhetoric.

Here we are debating Bill C-42 today. It will provide an effective delay of five years directed toward advertising to our youth. If that is not a weakening, I have never seen a weakening.

In 1988 parliament said no to cigarette ads. In 1998 we are here saying the same thing. In 2003 when this bill will come into complete force if the effective date is tomorrow, does anyone really believe that those ads will be gone? I ask that in deep sincerity. Does anyone really believe this?

What objective gauge is there of the effectiveness of our anti-tobacco measures? I believe there are four. I would like to go over each one of them.

The number one gauge of how effective we are is the number of smokers, especially our youth.

The second good gauge is the number of cigarettes those smokers smoke. It is fairly easy to graph that. This is followed by epidemiologists across the world. How have we done with the number of smokers and the number of cigarettes they smoke?

Since about 1970 the U.S. and Canada had a wonderful record of smoking coming down in lockstep, the two lines coming down together. In 1993 the U.S. continued to plunge and Canada rose. Something happened in 1993 in Canada that was the responsibility of the government of the day. I will not spend a lot of time on that but it was a mistake.

Third, we can judge how we are doing by the profitability of the tobacco manufacturing companies. From the records we find that in 1988, 10 years ago, Players made a profit of $308 million; in 1997, 10 years hence, it made $775 million. Rothmans in 1988 made $54.55 million; today, $112.3 million. They say that is because they have been very effective in branching out. We all know they are effective because they are selling more smokes to more Canadians.

Finally, we can judge our government's commitment to tobacco use reduction by youth by what the government is spending on educational programs.

It is spending $20 million per year over the next five year, if it spends it, and it takes in $2,000 million per year in tax revenue. It is 1% toward those education components. That is not good.

Why the weakening? Why have we got a weakening? Let me be so plain, there is a weakening here. Formula One was used as a lever. I am the keenest formula one fan so I watch this with great interest. It was in Montreal. There was a threat that it would leave Montreal. There was a unity component to it and there was an election just coming up. So there was a quiet, private little commitment to the Formula One crew that logos would still be allowed. If that is allowed the government says that it better allow it to everyone else. That is what it has done.

What is happening in Formula One elsewhere? Members heard what the member from Wellington said about Formula One in some countries. Let me be more specific about what countries are doing that are serious about this issue. If anybody watched Formula One this year they saw no signs on the Ferraris the Williams cars, the Benneton cars and the Mild Seven cars. France, Germany and the United Kingdom stood firm and powerful. They were not timid. Belgium next year will have no signs on Formula One cars.

Bernie Ecclestone, a billionaire, the head of the governing body of Formula One, the F1A, has promised that he will voluntarily ban tobacco sponsorship by the year 2002 if the relationship showing sponsorship increase and smoking is established. The head of the whole group is ready to do this voluntarily.

Air Canada has stepped up to be the title sponsor for Formula 1. Is that an unusual thing? The world is moving rapidly. Canada is moving timidly.

What other major events in Canada have also seen their sponsorship replaced? The Canadian open is now sponsored by Bell Canada. It used to be sponsored by a tobacco company. Women's tennis is now sponsored by Corel. I give those companies high marks for coming in and replacing sponsorship which was inappropriate. Healthy vigorous activities are being sponsored by companies that are not promoting health and vigour.

If the event is popular and visible new sponsors will move in to replace those cigarette sponsors? What type of sponsors? There are the banks, oil companies, computer firms and the list goes on. Here are the things they would sponsor. I would like the public to listen to the type of things, the active and healthy things. There is tennis and jazz. Maybe everybody smokes in a quiet jazz bar. There is show jumping, golf, the rest of auto racing, fireworks, white water rafting, extreme ski racing, hydroplane racing and country music concerts. I cannot imagine how those events will not find sponsorship that is proper.

Let me finish off by going back to another quote which reflects on Bill C-42: “Our legislation is among the toughest in the world”. I have talked to health groups from across this country. Not one single health group agrees with the member for Waterloo—Wellington. By all objective assessments, the government looks, acts and talks tough on tobacco but the Liberals are defensive, timid and moving in reverse when it comes to protecting our youth.

[Reed Elley, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad of the opportunity to speak to Bill C-42, an act to amend the Tobacco Act. I do not think anyone in the House would minimize the importance of this act.

Tobacco consumption poses one of the most serious risks we have to the health of Canadians. I was very glad to hear the Minister of Health say that in the House today in answer to a question during question period. I am just sorry that he chose to send one of his lower echelon members of the health committee to speak rather than himself because it shows I guess the kind of importance he attaches to the bill.

Even those people who choose to use tobacco products will agree that it is a lifestyle choice that could lead to serious illness or early death. There are literally thousands of studies by competent health care professionals that attest to this fact. The issue of risk to health is not really the issue here. It is rather the one of whether the government takes seriously its role through Health Canada to protect the health interests of Canadians.

I suggest that in presenting Bill C-42 the government is not fully accepting this responsibility. It is a step in the right direction but it hardly goes far enough. Why in the world would we in the Reform Party oppose the bill when it ostensibly purports to decrease the influence of the tobacco industry over the general public and young people in particular? Simply put, because it will not really do that in the long run. Why do I say that?

First of all, it allows tobacco companies to use retail ads and billboards to advertise cigarettes to children. Ten years have passed since parliament first told the tobacco companies to take their advertising material out of the corner stores of this nation, to get them off the streets of Canada. Instead, Bill C-42 continues to give the tobacco companies another two years to reach Canadian kids on their way to school and in the stores they frequent. That is just not acceptable. If the government and the minister were really concerned about our children they would shut the door tomorrow.

I have eight children. Three of the four oldest had brief times in their lives when they smoked. I am happy to say that none of them smokes today, but it was not because of the government's poor attempt to curtail the advertising of tobacco products when they were in their teenage years. It was because of good peer pressure from both family and friends who continued to remind them of the terrible health risks of smoking: the threat of cancer of the lungs and throat, the damage to a healthy heart that is sustained by prolonged smoking, breathing that becomes hard and laboured, fingers that are discoloured, not to mention the damage that second hand smoke does to innocent children and family members who have exercised their right not to smoke.

In two years' time how many children will begin to smoke because of the advertising campaigns of the big tobacco companies? How many will get cancer in later years? How many will eventually die? Do the minister and the government want to have the blood of these young people on their hands? I urge the government to reconsider the bill and force the tobacco companies to cease this advertising immediately.

I cannot support the bill also because it allows lifestyle advertising of cigarettes to continue. The Tobacco Act says tobacco companies can advertise but not with lifestyle ads. In my estimation that is entirely appropriate. These are the ads that somehow convey to young people that smoking is fun. There is no fun in shortness of breath, no fun in irregular heartbeats, no fun in the loss of taste and smell, no fun in the pain of lingering cancer, no fun in that at all.

Third, I cannot support the bill because it does not guarantee that sponsorship promotion will end in the five years as promised. The government would have Canadians believe that Bill C-42 will make sure there is a total ban on sponsorship in five years. But the way the date is set allows the government to reset the clock and allow further extensions without coming back to parliament. That is wrong and furthermore it is undemocratic.

Clause 5 of section 52 says: “The governor in council may by regulation prescribe a day for the purposes of—”, that is beginning the countdown to restrictions and ban of cigarette sponsorship ads.

What that means is that using “may” instead of “shall” allows the government to give a permanent extension by neglecting to set the date. It means this government can test the political wind and see which way it is blowing and continue to stall on this if it is not to its political advantage.

It means that the powerful tobacco lobby will have more opportunity to influence the government's decision. It means this government, if it continues in office for the next five years, perish the thought, could simply let this thing slowly disappear into the sunset never to be heard of again. I believe Canadians feel that is totally unacceptable. It shows once again little regard for the health of Canadians.

I also cannot support this bill because allowing sponsorship advertising has already increased the retail advertising of cigarettes. A Health Canada survey shows that since the Tobacco Act came into force, retail advertising for cigarettes has actually gone up.

Health Canada has commissioned two surveys of tobacco advertising in retail outlets conducted by A.C. Neilson of approximately 5,000 retailers. The first survey was conducted in 1997 when there was no legislative ban on tobacco advertising. The second was conducted in September 1997, five months after the passage of the Tobacco Act.

What are the results? In five months the survey showed a 1.4% increase in sponsorship ads. These ads very subtly allow a local event, perhaps held in Pumpkin Corners, B.C., which would draw perhaps 1,000 people locally, to be advertised in over 10,000 retail outlets across the country. Why? At the bottom of the ad prominently displayed is the name of the tobacco company as the sponsor of an event that has relevance only to the 1,000 souls in Pumpkin Centre. From my point of view that is not honest advertising and it should not be allowed.

The big events like the Canadian Grand Prix have maintained that without this kind of advertising and support from the tobacco companies they will simply fold up and die. This claim, however, is not holding up in the face of reality. For example, the Canadian Grand Prix, as my colleague has already mentioned, has a new title sponsor in Air Canada replacing Players, a cigarette brand.

If an event is an outstanding contributor to the Canadian cultural or sports scene it will find a sponsor who will see it as a great and glorious opportunity to advertise their company or product. These events do not need tobacco advertising to exist.

It is for these reasons that I cannot support this bill. My only hope is that as it comes to the health committee for study we will see an all party consensus to make substantial amendments to it that will truly make it a bill that will safeguard the health of Canadians. If it passes third reading the way it is it will be just another example of an uncaring Liberal government that listens to big business before ordinary Canadians, a government that procrastinates while the health of young people is in jeopardy, a government that, as in many other instances, does not keep its word.

I urge all caring members of this House to oppose this bill.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to speak on Bill C-42. My approach will be somewhat different from those of my colleagues who have already spoken. I would particularly like to address it from a more technical point of view, perhaps a little more difficult one as a result. I would, however, like my view of the bill to still be clear enough to be interesting.

Bill C-42 defers certain provisions of the Tobacco Act, the current act concerning tobacco company sponsorships. The amendments bring in a two-year moratorium on the prohibition of tobacco sponsorship promotions, i.e. until October 2000. Between the third and the fifth year, the restrictions will apply as initially set out in the current act, which is that 10% of sign advertising will be allowed, until the total ban kicks in on October 1, 2003. At that time, in other words, all tobacco company sponsorship signs will be totally banned.

This initiative is in response to a request made by the Bloc Quebecois and by all organizers of sports or cultural events, to give time to these organizers to find other sources of funding. It is, however, deplorable that the government is backtracking and refusing to contribute to the compensation fund that has been set up in Quebec.

In order to understand what Bill C-42 is all about, it is important to keep its origins in mind as well as the grounds for the government's decision to re-examine the conditions the current act had set for sponsorships.

We will recall that, in September 1995, a decision by the supreme court invalidated the provisions of the Tobacco Products Control Act pertaining to advertising, thus creating a legal void on the issue and enabling the tobacco industry to resume its advertising.

It is true, the industry voluntarily set up a code of ethics for itself, but, once again, as with the voluntary moratorium on medically assisted human reproductive technologies, this voluntary code was, to all intents and purposes, never really enforced.

The Minister of Health at the time tabled in December 1995 the outline of the anti smoking strategy the government intended to introduce.

It contained restrictions on advertising and on tobacco sponsorships, standards for young people's access to tobacco, packaging and labelling requirements, reporting requirements for the companies and, finally, restrictions on points of sale.

In short, this master plan provided for total regulation of tobacco products at all stages, from their manufacture to their points of sale.

Only one thing was missing, provision for compensation of the groups that had been sponsored by the tobacco companies. This sponsorship would be significantly reduced, if not eliminated.

More than a year after the Supreme Court decision, which overturned a number of the provisions in the Tobacco Products Control Act, more than a year after the master plan of the former Health Minister was tabled, the government finally introduced some measures to counteract the ill effects of smoking.

The Bloc Quebecois has always been in favour of the principle of protecting public health, which is why we voted in favour of the bill at second reading. Far be it from me to disagree with the harmful effects of smoking my colleagues in the Reform Party have listed. Who could be against everything possible being done to do away with smoking? Certainly not the Bloc Quebecois.

Although we voted in favour of the bill at second reading, the feeling that we have acted on principle ought not to prevent us from seeing the impact of our actions on society. Unfortunately, the tobacco bill, its good measures notwithstanding, swept under the rug the whole issue of sports and cultural events. These were, unavoidably, going to feel the impact of the bill, mainly because of the de facto ban on tobacco company sponsorship without any plan for compensation, as we know.

The Bloc Quebecois therefore voted against Bill C-71 at third reading, and I will explain why we did so.

The measures relating to sponsorships impacted in a very serious way on sports and cultural events. The Bloc Quebecois called upon the ministers of health and of heritage to offer financial compensation and to act like politicians responsible for their actions.

However, the minister at the time, David Dingwall, failed to assume his responsibilities and refused categorically.

Bill C-71 was constructed in such a way that a number of clauses simply gave the minister the power to regulate in various areas, without defining the scope of these regulations. In fact, all of the clauses in Bill C-71 referred to future regulations. This was tantamount to giving the Minister of Health a blank cheque and seriously complicated our work as elected officials.

I do not wish to accuse anyone of bad faith, but the government must not get into the habit of introducing this sort of bill, much of which cannot be debated in the House or in committee.

We cannot let the accelerated passage of this bill go unnoticed. At second reading, debate was limited to a single speaker from the Bloc Quebecois. During committee deliberations, the Bloc Quebecois had to fight for an additional half day to hear witnesses. Originally, barely a day and a half had been set aside for this stage. This was really ridiculous. We wait nearly two years for the government to decide to introduce a bill and in committee we are asked to debate it in a day and a half at breakneck speed. This is really unusual, and I hope the government will stop this practice, because it really does not respect the members' work.

Finally, although we agree completely with the protection of health, as I mentioned earlier, we have not forgotten that this is a provincial jurisdiction and that Bill C-71 allowed the federal government once again to interfere in a sector that the provinces are quite capable of managing on their own, as evidenced by the recent tobacco legislation passed in Quebec City.

Bill C-42, however, was introduced by the federal Minister of Health on June 3, one year after the promise made by the Prime Minister on the eve of the last federal election. Faced with the outcry that greeted Bill C-71 in Quebec, primarily among organizers of sports and cultural events, the Prime Minister made a promise during the election campaign to amend his anti-smoking legislation, obviously in order to win a few votes in Quebec.

Although the primary goal of this amendment was to repair the damage done by the federal government's error, Bill C-42 also refers to several draft regulations, the effect of which will be to clamp down even harder on the production methods and products of tobacco companies.

Before the Tobacco Act took effect on April 25, 1997, manufacturers and importers were required to provide certain information regarding tobacco sales, ingredients and advertising. What I wanted to focus on here are the measures and regulations that place greater restrictions on tobacco companies, and their effect on those companies.

Under the new regulations, better information would be obtained from manufacturers on tobacco sales, ingredients, research, as well as the manufacturing, distribution and promotion of tobacco products.

Regarding sales and toxic components, it also proposed to extend current disclosure requirements to include all categories of tobacco products, including cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, pipe tobacco, cigars, smokeless tobacco, clove tobacco and the hand-rolled Indian cigarettes called bidis.

Studies are also covered. Under the proposed regulations, tobacco manufacturers would be required to disclose and list any study on the toxicity or health effects of their products, the taste and aroma of tobacco products, the improvement or development of tobacco products, as well as the ingredients they contain.

This information would promote a better understanding of how tobacco products are modified so that regulations can eventually be proposed to reduce the impact of smoking.

With respect to promotional activities, manufacturers and importers of all types of tobacco products would be required to disclose promotional activities and sponsorship promotions by brand name and province for any event, activity or facility.

The main thrust of Bill C-42 is to amend the existing Tobacco Act to extend the transition period before the restrictions already provided for in the act come into effect. This is the kind of common sense the Bloc Quebecois tried to inject into the debate when Bill C-71 was introduced over a year ago.

The first phase, spanning two years after the amendment is enacted, will extend the status quo regarding promotion both on and off the site of events and activities sponsored by a tobacco company before April 25, 1997. Tobacco sponsorship promotions will not be subject to any restriction under federal legislation.

The second phase, lasting three years after the two years of transition, will again extend the status quo for promotions at the site of sponsored events and activities, by permitting the display of product-related brand elements in promotional material throughout the site of events; 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—10% advertising at the bottom of a sign—to sponsorship promotions off site. These promotions will be permitted in mailings sent directly to adults who are identified by name, 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 in particular, as well as on the economic level.

The problem with Bill C-42 is the lack of any transition fund, any compensation. The Bloc Quebecois feels that jurisdiction over health ought to be left to the provinces. Health is a provincial jurisdiction—a Quebec jurisdiction, in our case—and we denounce the current situation.

It must be kept in mind that health is, as I have said, a provincial area of jurisdiction, although the numerous federal incursions into it tend to make some people lose sight of that fact. The provincial level is therefore the main one on which health protection initiatives need to be designed and implemented.

I would like to give you an overview of the tobacco legislation Quebec has just implemented, which will perhaps give you a more informed view of a bill we feel is a very intelligent one.

The bill of Quebec's Minister of Health Jean Rochon was introduced on May 14, 1998 and passed unanimously on June 17, 1998. The bill received a favourable reception from the media, the health organizations, the organizers of sporting and cultural events, and the general public. The Quebec Minister of Health avoided the pitfalls of the federal Liberals by adopting an approach that was far more attuned to reality, while at the same time bringing in new standards for the anti-smoking campaign. His bill is bolder as far as content is concerned, yet more flexible as far as application is concerned.

Regarding the prohibition of sponsorships, the provincial legislation gives organizers of events a choice between two types of transition: they either discontinue all tobacco sponsorship activities by October 1, 2000, and have access to a financial assistance program running until October 1, 2003, which is the Quebec government solution, or they will be subject to a five-year transition with restrictions after October 1, 2000, and forfeit the financial assistance, as provided for in the bill before us.

Under this bill, sponsorship contracts already signed with tobacco companies can be honoured and renewed up to October 1, 2000. However, the Quebec legislation imposes as ceiling on the value of such contracts the maximum contracted amount as of June 11, 1998.

Organisers have until October 1, 2000, to make a choice. 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 laxity and rigidity. To achieve this balance, Quebec finance minister Bernard Landry agreed to use part of the extra income generated by the recent tax increase imposed on tobacco products to compensate organizations that will discontinue tobacco sponsorship in the year 2000.

According to the Constitution, anti-smoking efforts, like any health initiative, should come from the provinces, not the federal government. If Quebec and the other provinces did not have to hand over more than $30 billion in taxes every year, if we could hang on to that money, we could invest more in these prevention and awareness initiatives.

But hand it over we must and, in the last 30 years or so, federal transfer payments have dropped from 28% to 14% of Quebec's budget. In Quebec's health sector alone, the federal government's contribution has dropped from 39% to 30% in the last 10 years.

For 1997-98 alone, the Government of Quebec estimates that the $590 million cut by the federal government represents 80% of the total $760 million budgeted by Quebec for the entire health and social services sector.

Far from giving the provinces more room to manoeuvre, Ottawa is unilaterally cutting transfer payments, and then spending the money itself. The entire issue of federal government health funding must be reviewed and overhauled.

In the meantime, it is important that the federal government assume its responsibilities and contribute to the compensation fund set up by Quebec, and by the other provinces if they so wished. The government is benefiting from the hundreds of millions of dollars in spinoffs from sports and cultural events.

The federal Minister of Health must support efforts to offset the negative effects of anti-smoking measures. This is an investment in the economies of Montreal, Quebec and Canada.

The Bloc Quebecois is pleased to see that Bill C-42 takes a much more balanced approach to the provisions of the Tobacco Act since the adoption of Bill C-71. It is deplorable, however, that it has taken the Liberals over one year to understand what we have been saying from the beginning of this debate: it is possible to mount an effective campaign against the dangers of smoking without unduly penalizing any one group.

The fight against smoking is one that must be waged by all of society. A habit that has been around for many generations will not be easily changed. But authorities will now have better weapons against the serious public health problem it represents.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to tell the House and all Canadians why we in the New Democratic Party oppose Bill C-42 and to propose some amendments that we believe are absolutely essential if the bill is to go forward.

For me and so many in this place today Bill C-42 is about kids. For me personally it is about my nine year old son Joe who wants to be cool like any kid in his age group, who but for the harping of his parents and for the good teachings and role models at his school might think that to be cool, to be liked and to be athletic he should smoke. Families, individuals and young people are willing to do their part to deal with the terrible addiction to tobacco and to speak out against rampant advertising of tobacco products.

The question for us today in the context of the bill concerns what is the role of government. What is the plan of Liberals in the House for meeting their responsibilities and obligations when it comes to such a fundamentally important public health issue as tobacco addiction?

Under the bill, tobacco companies will have another two years of unfettered lifestyle advertising to the sponsorship of arts, sports and cultural events. All kinds of studies have shown that this type of advertising is deadly effective in recruiting underage smokers. Boys and girls see their sports and music heroes associated with cigarettes. It makes tobacco look cool when in fact tobacco kills half its users. That is 40,000 Canadians every year.

This is a product that when used properly, when used as recommended, will kill and injure its users. It costs our health care system billions of dollars. It costs our mothers and fathers, sons and daughters their lives.

Yet this is what the government is proposing to do today. It is proposing to delay action on something as significant as tobacco sponsorship and advertising for another two years. The delay in terms of restrictions on sponsorship and advertising by tobacco companies combined with a delay in actions by the government to actually prevent young people from turning to tobacco that is so deadly are together causing us so much grief in the Chamber today.

I do not need to remind anyone in the Chamber or those across the country of just how serious a problem we have. By the Minister of Health's own statistics, every year 250,000 young people start smoking.

We could be moderate in our expectations and say that if even 10% of these young people do not start smoking it would amount to 25,000 of them. If through an effective program of education and communication we could convince half those people never to start again, we would save a minimum of 12,500 lives from cancers, heart disease and other tobacco related illnesses.

Today we ask the government to rethink this delay in terms of advertising by tobacco companies when it comes to sponsorship and advertising generally. We ask for more. We ask for the plan of action to actually prevent smoking among young people and for programs that will help young people to cease and desist when it comes to cigarettes. We are not getting the answers.

Today I plead with members across the way to come forward with specific plans to meet the commitments they have made publicly to Canadian people time and time again. I think specifically of the promise of the Liberal government in the 1997 election to increase emphasis on preventing illnesses and specifically to double its funding to $100 million over five years to provide more programs at the community level which prevent young people from smoking or help them to stop.

As I pointed out in the House earlier today, when we requested the information to show just how much of this money had been spent, the minister informed the House that for the year 1997-98 $200,000 of the $20 million a year or $100 million over five years had been spent, a tiny percentage of what the government promised and what is absolutely required to make the difference.

I also remind members that the government has made commitments internationally. Just a few days ago we received a press release that came out of the conference of the ministers of health of the Americas which agreed to take measures to protect children and adolescents from tobacco by regulating advertising and enforcing laws against cigarette sales to minors as a top priority.

I assume that this commitment has been made and now the government has an obligation to live up to it. The measures presented to us in the legislation today flies in the face of the kind of commitment and action so desperately needed on the part of the government, specifically the health minister.

On October 1, tomorrow, certain provisions of Bill C-71 come into effect. Let me remind members that Bill C-71 is the Tobacco Act passed by parliament in 1997. The provisions due to kick in tomorrow would restrict sponsorship advertising. For example, tobacco brand names could only appear on the bottom 10% of signs.

However, the bill before us today, Bill C-42, puts the whole thing off. There is one positive provision in Bill C-42 before us today, and that is the total ban on tobacco sponsorships in five years. The date is not entrenched in law. A deadline is not included in the legislation. The way the bill is drafted would allow cabinet to fix and unfix the date behind closed doors without ever consulting parliament or Canadians.

It is a built-in mechanism for delaying or gutting the bill altogether. It is designed to build support for a bill with the primary purpose of delaying the tobacco ad restrictions of Bill C-71. That in my estimation is underhanded and reprehensible. Nobody is falling for it. It means two more years of open season on Canadian kids. We cannot let that happen.

Bill C-42 allows tobacco companies to continue to place cigarette promotions near schools and playgrounds. Why did that provision have to remain in the bill? Why could we not begin the immediate restriction in terms of off site sponsorship advertising? We have all been exposed to what that kind of advertising means. I have seen it. I have photos of a cigarette ad near a playground in Edmonton. It is just metres outside the voluntary 200 metre limit set by tobacco companies.

Why not act on something as clear and helpful as restriction in retail stores, in any community location where young people gather? Ideally we would like to see sponsorship restrictions come into effect right way. We would like to see that in conjunction with transitional funding for groups and events that lost tobacco sponsorships.

Failing that, we would like to see Bill C-42 amended so that material promoting tobacco use is not visible to the public within 1,000 metres of a school, a place of worship, a community centre, playground, public park, recreation centre or child care centre. Why did the government not come forward with a safe zone proposal so that young children at schools, day cares and community centres would not be exposed to this kind of lifestyle advertising?

Related to that, why not support our suggestion in this bill to prohibit sponsorship promotion inside and outside stores where tobacco is sold? Children go to corner stores to buy candy, to buy comic books. Why are they inundated with glossy images of attractive events associated with tobacco?

We would like to see Bill C-42 amended so that it contains an actual date, a definite timetable in terms of when the clock starts ticking for this five year lead-up to a total ban. When can we expect precisely when this ban will come into effect? Why does the government not come forward or support our suggestion for a definite date such as October 1, 2003 and accept this as the fixed time in law that all tobacco sponsorships will finally end?

It seems to us the two year delay period should end on October 1, 2000, not at the will of Liberal cabinet ministers who sat on the boards of directors of tobacco giants.

We have to have guarantees that this timetable is entrenched in law. We cannot leave it to the whims of the government to be changed at will by order in council. The track record frankly of members opposite is not great in terms of meeting commitments when it comes to tobacco related legislation.

We also want to see this bill amended so that the grandfather provisions apply only to events sponsored in Canada as of April 25, 1997. As members know, right now as it stands, if a tobacco company sponsored an event anywhere in the world, whether in the United States, Malaysia or Paraguay, it can make a claim under the grandfather provisions.

We want to see Bill C-42 changed so that it reads that during the delay period sponsorship promotions would not be allowed to contain images of people, be misleading or be conveyed through non-tobacco goods such as hats or jackets.

We want to see representatives of tobacco companies required to appear before the health committee of parliament to reveal their recruitment strategies for smokers under 18. We want to see their documents which show they knew tobacco kills.

Earlier today I raise the matter of the timing of Bill C-42 vis-à-vis the provisions of the Tobacco Act being changed in Bill C-42 come into effect tomorrow.

It is my view that it is a contempt of parliament to have the introduction of a bill so late, knowing full well the timetable in terms of the previous tobacco legislation, Bill C-71, and the time it takes for this parliament to pass Bill C-42, putting it through all the proper stages.

Bill C-71, the Tobacco Act passed by parliament in 1997, takes effect tomorrow. Can Bill C-42 pass tomorrow? No, we all know that. It is impossible. There will be a gap of weeks in which the government will not enforce the law.

I guess in my most cynical moments I could say that maybe this is in keeping with the kind of arrogance we have seen from the Liberal government on so many issues, especially over the past number of weeks pertaining to the silencing of peaceful protesters to protect a bloody dictator's pride. Surely we could all agree that the rights and health of Canadians should always come before the profits of multinationals, selling hazardous products or the embarrassment of tinpot dictators.

I remain concerned about the actions of this government with respect to the legal void that has been created. I heard the Speaker's ruling today in response to my matter of privilege and I invite members of the Liberal government in questions and comments to address this issue.

I would like a member of the Liberal government to actually answer what happens if the act is not in force by October 1, 1998. What happens if Bill C-42 is not passed and proclaimed tomorrow?

According to the minister's own briefing notes, members of the Liberal government have been advised to say given that my intentions are now known, it would be appropriate for the department to administer this legislation as if the amendment were in the effect as of October 1, 1998.

I encourage members to address this topic. This is a serious matter for the work we do as parliamentarians and it is a serious matter for all Canadians concerned about government actions and inactions with respect to this very important issue.

I would like to acknowledge the work of many in society today with respect to dealing with this very serious public health issue of smoking and tobacco.

I have benefited from the advice and encouragement of many in our communities, in my own constituency and organizations representing thousands of Canadians right across this country. I think it is important for us in parliament to acknowledge the work of those people and those organizations.

In particular I thank the Canadian Cancer Society, Physicians for a Smoke Free Canada, the Non-Smoker's Rights Association and the many health organizations and concerned parents from everywhere in this country who have worked so hard for stronger tobacco laws for the sake of our health and for the sake of our kids. We all owe them a debt of gratitude.

All of us in the New Democratic Party are very clear today about our position on Bill C-42. On behalf of all members of our caucus, I pledge our support for an end to the recruitment of our young people to a lifelong addiction to smoking.

We look forward to pressing for effective amendments to this bill and addressing the very serious issue of tobacco marketing at the health committee.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the only way we are going to resolve anything is to declare all out war on smoking. I say war because I want to remind the House and Canadians that 42,000 Canadians died in World War II between 1939 and 1945. That is almost the same number of Canadians, documented, who are dying every year in Canada as a result of smoking, specifically 45,000. That is more than what we lost in World War II. It is hard to believe.

That is the seriousness of the problem. Sadly the government is doing nothing about it. It is caving in to the interests of the big tobacco lobbyists, and there is none any bigger in this country. There would be only one group of business people lower on the acceptability scale, maybe including politicians, and that would be the big banks. They rank with the biggest of the biggest and they are extremely powerful.

Critical in the debate is that 250,000 young Canadians begin to smoke each year in this country. Statistics shows this is going to lead to an early death for at least 50% of those young Canadians. The numbers are overwhelming and it is sobering when we look at the sheer number of Canadians starting to smoke every year.

Some of the arguments cigarette companies use to promote the use of their product are almost mind boggling. This shows us the power of advertising, the power of the cigarette companies and some of the bizarre things they have done in the past and continue to do.

Knowing that 40,000 people a year die from smoking, being the health critic immediately I would say imagine the drain this puts on our health care services. How much money is devoted to the care and concern of those 40,000 Canadian who are dying because of smoking?

The cigarette companies claim there is a death benefit to smoking and it would be in the government's best interest if all Canadians smoked. The argument is so bizarre it is hard to believe they commissioned a study to attempt to prove this. The cigarette companies say smoking is not a drain on society. It does not result in a cost to government because of sickness, death and work related illness because of smoking.

The cigarette companies are saying that there is a death benefit to smoking and they argue that if you smoke you are going to die younger. Their perverted logic says if you die younger it means you will not be taking in as much in terms of social security from the government. In order words, you would not collect Canada pension as long and this would be good for the government. The cigarette companies argue that you would not be collecting old age pension as long because obviously you are going to die younger. As a result, the government is going to save money.

The argument is so bizarre and so illogical that it is hard to believe that a cigarette company would actually promote it, but they have and they do. It has been discounted and discredited by just about every think tank in the world, including the Work Bank. It is such a bizarre statement, claiming it is factual.

As ironic as it may appear I believe the government buys into the argument because if it did not why would it not crack down on smoking the way it should and the way it can? No, the government has caved in once again to the big cigarette manufacturers.

The government has someone in its own caucus who is proposing to do something about it but unfortunately he is in the other place. I am of course talking about Senator Colin Kenny. Mr. Kenny has a bill before parliament that will do something now about smoking. However, I do not believe the government is going to buy into this one because it means he is doing something decisive, he is doing it now and he wants action. He does not want the government to backpedal on what it should be doing.

This is a good example of what the Senate can do. What the senator is proposing is workable and very doable. Some of the statistics that Colin Kenny cites when he gives his public speeches are the very statistics we are using in this House today.

What I would personally like to see I think goes beyond what Senator Kenny is talking about. If we are going to attack cigarette smoking, three elements have to be in place. We simply cannot attack advertising or education. We have to attack three major components.

One would be the price point. The price point of cigarettes is determined to a large degree by taxation. What I am saying is that a tax increase on cigarettes, a dedicated tax where it would be used for education and maybe for some assistance to the farmers, has to be part of the equation.

The second thing we must do is educate our young people about the risks of smoking. They did that quite successfully in California. Today in California $4 per person per year is spent to advertise the dangers of smoking. In Canada I think the federal government is spending about 30 cents per person to educate Canadians and especially young Canadians about the risks of taking up the habit of smoking.

I have mentioned taxes and education. The third thing is advertising. We have to hit advertising very hard but this bill is not doing that.

Driving here or in any major city such as Montreal, it is pretty obvious what the cigarette companies are up to. They are promoting lifestyle. While driving through the city of Montreal I could come to the subliminal conclusion that by taking up smoking du Maurier cigarettes I am going to be a concert pianist or violinist. I believe that was the market that particular cigarette company was after. It is one of the biggest selling cigarette brands in the country. However, if I wanted to be a downhill skier and possibly a world medalist in skiing, I would probably smoke Export A. Then again if I wanted to be a race car driver I would probably pick up Rothmans.

Cigarette companies are targeting their audience. They know who their audience happens to be, the younger members of our society.

I have mentioned taxes, education and advertising. Where the government went wrong, the single biggest blunder it made in this war on cigarette smoking was in 1994 when it capitulated and dramatically decreased the amount of tax on a package of cigarettes. When taxes were significantly reduced in 1994 there was the single biggest increase in the consumption of cigarettes by young people in the history of the country.

The government caved in. Who did it cave in to? This is even more bizarre. It caved in to the smugglers. Instead of putting money toward the problem of smuggling and enforcing our own revenue laws as it should have, the government caved in to the smugglers. Who did the government hurt? The government hurt 250,000 young Canadians who pick up the habit every year. Who did the government help? I do not know. I guess it helped itself. In 1994 that was the easy way out for the government and it caved in and did it. It was wrong and it is still wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I want you to tell me how much time I have left because I have some amendments to the bill. Five minutes. That should be enough time, because I want to put six or seven amendments on the table. The Speaker is saying 10 minutes and more if I need it.

I see the minister of agriculture is here listening intently and encouraging me as I go along.

I want to put these amendments on the record. Being realistic, we can expect the government to do some things and not to do other things. These amendments are very consistent with what we would like to see happen as a party, as a caucus. It probably does not go far enough as far as I am concerned. I think it has got to be a cold turkey approach: no advertisements, a complete ban on advertising from day one.

Let us go through some of these amendments because they temper some of my own thoughts with regard to this. I want to give credit to the Canadian Cancer Society as well because it has worked hard on some of these amendments. Some of them come directly from the Canadian Cancer Society. I am going to be reading these into the record and I will forward these to the House when I am finished.

One, there should be a ceiling on tobacco company sponsorship promotion expenditures during the delay period. This would prevent tobacco companies from increasing the exposure of sponsorship promotions. It would prevent tobacco companies from increasing the financial dependency of sponsorship recipients. It would stop the sponsorship problem from getting worse. Although the former Tobacco Products Control Act contained a ceiling on brand name sponsorship expenditures, tobacco companies cited a loophole in another provision of the act and increased sponsorship expenditures from $10 million in 1987 to $60 million in 1996.

The second point to be considered in terms of amendments would be that during the delay period, sponsorship promotions should be prohibited on the inside and outside of stores where tobacco is sold. These promotions, which were scheduled to have been banned on October 1, 1998, are completely unnecessary for the promotion of a cultural or sports event.

During the 1996-97 period, including the 1996 summer sponsorship season, sponsorship promotions were generally not found at point of sale. Sponsorship promotions that had previously been visible at point of sale were replaced by direct advertising, given that the tobacco companies were not prevented by law from doing so during the period after the advertising restrictions were in force and before the Tobacco Act was passed.

Sponsorship promotions at point of sale typically contain lots of attractive images and little information, sometimes for events that are thousands of kilometres away or that occurred months earlier. Children go into corner stores every day and they should not be exposed to such promotions.

The reasonableness of such an amendment is demonstrated by sponsored events still being able to use every other media to promote their activities: newspapers, direct mail, television, radio, on-site programs, Internet, billboards, transit vehicles and shelters. Indeed the extensive scope of permitted sponsorship promotions emphasizes just how serious the further delay period will be.

Three, the bill should be amended so that the two year and five year delay periods begin on October 1, 1998 and end on October 1 in the year 2000 and October 1, 2003 respectively. It is an interesting point that at present the cabinet is free to determine whatever starting date it wants. The cabinet can determine whether it is October 1, 1998, January 1, 1999 or some other day in the future. Every month of additional delay means more teenagers needlessly become addicted.

As an aside, the Quebec tobacco act has two and five year delay periods that begin on the fixed date of October 1, 1998. There is no reason for the federal delay periods to begin at the same later date.

Four, the bill should be amended so that only events sponsored as of April 25, 1997 are allowed to continue during the delay period with tobacco sponsorship promotions. At present the bill does not allow sponsorship promotions unless the event or activity was sponsored prior to April 25, 1997. This is a good start, but as the bill now reads, it would allow events or activities whose tobacco sponsorship ended five, 10 or 15 years earlier to be revived. A simple amendment would prevent this scenario from occurring.

Five, the bill should be amended so that the grandfather provisions apply only to events sponsored in Canada as of April 25, 1997. At present the grandfather provision applies to anywhere in the world, whether it is the U.S., Argentina or Botswana. Tobacco companies should not be able to claim that because a Rothmans sponsorship existed in a foreign country and not in Canada, that sponsorship promotions for a foreign event can occur in Canada during the transition period.

Six, during the delay period, any sponsorship promotions should not be allowed to contain images of people, to be misleading, or to be conveyed through non-tobacco goods, for example T-shirts or baseball caps. This amendment could be implemented by making sponsorship promotions explicitly subject to section 21 of the act which bans the use of people in advertising and section 20 of the act, misleading advertising. Sponsorship promotions should be explicitly subject to sections 27 and 28 of the act, the use of tobacco brand elements on non-tobacco goods, with an exemption if necessary for existing international auto racing events for cars and clothing of drivers and pit crews.

Finally, the bill should be amended so that only international auto racing events are able to have tobacco sponsorship during a further delay period, and not all sponsored events. By allowing all events a further extension, allowing for a total delay of four seasons after the act was passed, there will be an unnecessary undermining of the objectives of the act. Delay periods of two years or less have been implemented in many places, including Belgium and France. Thus the bill would be amended to remove the extra two year delay for all promotions for all events, and to remove the extra five year delay for on-site promotions.

In 1988 when I was elected to this place for the first time, I replaced a longstanding member in this House by the name of Fred McCain. Fred McCain was a lifelong smoker. He smoked for over 50 years. It was a habit that Fred said “I took up when I was a young boy. If I had known then what I know now, I certainly would not have taken up the habit”. Fred McCain died just about a year ago. One of the things he impressed on me was to stay the fight, stay the course; we have to keep young Canadians off of that habit.

One of my constituents, Glenn McLeod, immediately after my election last year informed me that he has lung cancer. It was the same situation as with Mr. McCain. He started smoking as a very young man many years ago without knowing the dangers of smoking. But he said to me “If there is one thing that you want to impress on young Canadians, it is the real threat to our health as Canadians”.

Things have evolved over the last 40 years in this country. We now know that smoking is a danger. We now know that 250,000 young Canadians take it up every year. Let this House do the right thing. Bring in a strong bill. That is the only bill that we will support. We want fewer smokers and fewer deaths in Canada as a result of taking up that habit.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Unfortunately there is not time for questions and comments.

I know there are many members bursting out of their seats wishing to ask questions and make comments. The hon. member will have his 10 minutes of questions and comments the next time the bill comes before the House.

It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on today's order paper.

Equalization

[Norman E. Doyle, Progressive Conservative, St. John's East, NL]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should review the current equalization program formula with a view to decreasing the clawback on provincial revenues from resource development projects.

Mr. Speaker, last fall I had a private member's bill on Newfoundland's unemployment problem selected and debated here in the Chamber. In my final remarks I remember saying that if we had a fairer equalization formula applied to Newfoundland, and for that matter applied to all of the have-not provinces which receive equalization payments, then we would be a whole lot better off as a nation.

The Canadian equalization program, as we are all very much aware, redistributes the wealth of the nation. Last year the province of Newfoundland received about $996 million in equalization payments.

In this fiscal year we are expected to get roughly $896 million. That figure, of course, can be greatly affected by the national economy. In a good year any province that receives equalization payments can receive more and, of course, it can receive less when the economy is down.

The population of the receiving province is also a factor. In recent years it has meant a downward trend because of Newfoundland's decreasing population. Since 1987 Newfoundland has lost approximately 60,000 people. It is very serious indeed when the province in total has a population of less than 600,000 people.

However, the main variable I am concerned with is the fact that, with any major new influx of resource revenue, those revenues are deducted dollar for dollar from our equalization entitlements. That is to say, if the province had taken in about $1 billion in additional resource revenues in the 1997-98 fiscal year, we would have been only $4 million better off.

Just imagine that a province like Newfoundland can take in a billion dollars in additional resource revenues in any fiscal year and only be $4 million better off because, of course, the first $996 million of revenue will have merely gone to replace equalization.

There is not much of a chance for a province receiving equalization payments to catch up, to become equal with the other provinces. Of course, there is not much of an incentive for any province to develop.

I served as a member of the Newfoundland House of Assembly for a number of years. During those terms both PC and Liberal governments talked about the equalization formula that we have in this nation.

I think that was brought into focus in Newfoundland especially by the massive Hibernia discovery on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. At the time of that discovery in 1979 Hibernia held the promise of jobs and revenues for our beleaguered provincial economy.

In the early eighties oil prices were high and the prospect of multibillion dollar annual oil revenues was not out of the realm of the possible. Overcoming the equalization problem, the equalization hump, seemed to be within the realm of the possible. That is to say, we would lose the first billion but we could keep subsequent millions or billions of dollars, whatever the case may be.

However, as we are all aware, it proved impossible at that time for the government, the Trudeau administration, to negotiate an offshore oil agreement. So an agreement on offshore revenues was held up until the Mulroney administration came to power in Ottawa. By the time we actually started to develop that project oil prices were a whole lot lower. Now there was no possibility of multibillion dollar oil revenues and it looked as if the oil revenues that would be generated would merely replace equalization payments.

What happened then? To his credit, John Crosbie negotiated a deal with the Mulroney administration that would see us lose only 70 cents on the equalization dollar for revenues raised from the Hibernia project. However, the deal applied only to that particular project. The revenues from projects like Voisey's Bay would still be subtracted on a dollar for dollar basis.

Do not get me wrong. We are pleased that we have an equalization program. That equalization program can keep a province from starving. However, we are not pleased that it is a formula that will also keep us from getting ahead as a province. How can we ever be expected to catch up if every new dollar we earn is subtracted from equalization entitlements? And catch up we must.

For as long as I have been in public life the unemployment rate in the province has been double the national average. On top of that, the federal government has cut transfers for health and education by 35%. As a result, thousands of provincial public servants have been laid off and our public services are now under a great deal of strain, especially those in rural Newfoundland. The federal government has cut the federal public service in Newfoundland by 30% as compared with 15% nationally. It is hard to believe that a province with double the national unemployment rate was saddled with double the rate of federal job cuts.

Because the public service in general plays a larger than usual role in the province's economy, the cumulative effect of these cuts has been more devastating in Newfoundland than in other provinces. That is one more reason we need a new deal in this Confederation if we are to move out of park and into high gear.

The United Nations says that Canada is one of the best countries in the world in which to live, but I guess it all depends on where you happen to live in this nation. How can Canada hold up its head in the community of nations while one of its provinces, in this case the province of Newfoundland, has an unemployment rate that is double the national average? That is another reason we need a better equalization formula, to leave more wealth in the hands of the people of the province.

The province of Newfoundland and Labrador has vast oil and gas reserves. It has a lot of iron ore, nickel and hydroelectricity. In most countries that would form the basis of a massive industrial complex which would bring more people into the province. Instead, what we have in Newfoundland is the exporting of people and raw resources. I do not want to be cynical about this, but it seems to me that the centres of power in the nation do not want that to change.

Indeed we have recently been treated, if you will, to political and editorial comments out of central Canada that our nickel reserves should be used to feed smelters in Ontario and in Manitoba as well. The premier of Ontario really should have more sense than what he demonstrated in making that point about resource development in Newfoundland in Voisey's Bay. He should be saying as the premier of the largest province in Canada that we should be allowing the province to develop and we should be allowing the province to catch up.

We should be helping provinces like Newfoundland do that by implementing a new program that would see equalization cut by only 50%; a 50% clawback on the resource related revenues in the province.

I suppose some provinces can argue, and rightly so, that Newfoundland and the have-not provinces owe them something for providing jobs to migrant Newfoundlanders over the years, but should we therefore give away the wherewithal that we need to make us self-reliant? I think not.

I can understand, for instance, that the good people of Sudbury are concerned that the days of cheap local iron ore are over. Mining and related operations generally have a very fixed lifespan, as we are well aware.

I remember in Newfoundland, in my own constituency, that the towns of Bell Island and Buchans had to deal with the reality of ore running out and the tragedy of those mining towns shutting down. Such is the eventual fate, of course, of any mining town.

While we wish all the best to the good people of Sudbury, I do not feel that the nickel discovery at Voisey's Bay is the solution to their problem. Rather, the Voisey's Bay find is one of the solutions to Newfoundland's chronic economic problems. Properly done, with a new equalization formula, that project could provide thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in revenue. Being able to hold on to some of that revenue from that resource is what this motion is all about today.

We need revenues to do more than merely replace equalization. We need revenues to augment our economic situation. We need revenues to augment our equalization. We need those revenues to catch up, to make progress and to try in some way to become, if we possibly can over time, equal to the rest of Canada.

Canada will never be the nation that it should be if it does not seriously try to help rectify the crippling unemployment problem that we have in Newfoundland. I have suggested one mechanism, that of an improved equalization formula, which would leave more wealth in the local economy. Lower payroll taxes and income taxes could also help.

However, I do not believe anything will change if there is not an attitude change on the part of the federal government. That is why I am standing here today in the House asking for understanding for the kind of plight the province finds itself in. I am asking for understanding for a new deal within the Confederation of Canada, where all Canadians can be truly equal, wherever they happen to live, whether it is in Newfoundland, British Columbia or Nova Scotia. I do not think that will ever happen unless we get a new deal in this Confederation.