Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for this opportunity to explain what the department has done about smoking.
As you know, controlling and curbing smoking does not lend itself to simple, short term solutions. As a general comment, despite all we do, it is never enough. We are used to that.
There may be those who think we should be doing more, more quickly, though they should also recognize that over the past few years we have made some very dramatic gains. Hence, let me draw your attention to Canada's track record so far in this area.
We have put into place a number of activities to achieve longer term objectives. Among these activities are a series of initiatives on the regulatory front, developed within a comprehensive approach.
Back in 1997, the government enacted the Tobacco Act. This legislation regulates the manufacture, sale, labelling and promotion of tobacco products in Canada.
A series of regulations have since been adopted that mandated measures such as the pictorial health warnings now displayed on tobacco packaging.
All these measures help set the background for several rounds of effective mass media interventions that we continue to broadcast.
You may remember seeing Barb Tarbox, the anti-smoking advocate who recently died of lung cancer, and Heather Crowe, another advocate with lung cancer caused by years of inhaling second-hand smoke while working as a waitress. These women bring very powerful messages because they are real people telling real stories. Their messages have been as harsh as the reality of chronic diseases and smoking-related deaths.
However, smokers have also had to contend with confusing and often misleading informations about the cigarettes they purchase. I am talking here about the cigarette packages that feature “light” or “mild” claims.
Our research shows that a majority of Canadian smokers choose cigarettes that are labelled “light” or “mild”. According to the Canadian Tobacco Use Monitoring Survey, cigarettes labelled as “light”, “mild” or the like were preferred by approximately two-thirds of all smokers in Canada.
These cigarettes have the potential to be just as debilitating and lethal as regular cigarettes, yet this is not the message smokers receive when they see these claims.
So, what steps have we taken since December 2001, when a notice of intent was published, indicating that our government was considering developing regulations prohibiting the display of these descriptors on tobacco packaging?
Additional research has been conducted to gain a better understanding of attitudes and the behaviour of smokers who smoke cigarettes that are labelled “light” or “mild”. But because of the complexity of the issue, we are continuing to examine the light and mild issue to determine how best to assist Canadian smokers and to tailor any intervention to the Canadian context. Any future regulatory action will be based on solid information and sound reasoning, and will be undertaken at a time most appropriate to make a substantial difference.
Let me conclude my remarks by saying that smokers have the right to know the truth about what they smoke. They do not deserve to be confused by labels claiming “light” and “mild”, when the product can cause as much harm as other kinds of cigarettes.
That is why we are continuing to tackle this issue. This government is committed to taking action, the right action.