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.