Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to participate in the third reading debate of Bill C-42. We had a good and thorough discussion at committee. The government proposed several amendments. I thought I would like to use my time today to repeat for all members of the House and those watching this important debate the government's position, the government's intention and the government's commitment.
I am pleased to be here today with the support of the Minister of Health on this important initiative. Bill C-42 amends the Tobacco Act. I reiterate the government's view that Bill C-42 will toughen the existing Tobacco Act. It is another step forward in our work to control a substance that we recognize is a killer. It is at the root of about 40,000 premature deaths each year in Canada.
Bill C-42 places us consistently among international leaders in controlling the promotion of tobacco. I hope all people watching the debate and those in the House know that the primary focus of the bill is a five year timetable to end the marketing of tobacco products through event sponsorship. That is a very significant and important component of Bill C-42.
At the end of five years there will be a complete ban on tobacco sponsorship. We propose to accomplish this through a transitional process. Sports and cultural events that were in place with tobacco sponsorship prior to April 25, 1997 would have a two year period without new sponsorship restrictions but only during that period. During the following three years we want to tighten the limits significantly.
Onsite promotion of tobacco sponsorships would be able to continue. Offsite promotions would have to meet the 90:10 rules of the existing Tobacco Act. We would place stringent conditions on these offsite promotions to limit the exposure of young people to the marketing of tobacco products. In five years there would be no more promotions of tobacco sponsorship. Event names and facilities would not longer serve as a none too subtle reminder of tobacco and tobacco products.
Bill C-42 came after substantial discussions and consultations with all interested parties. We heard from the arts, sports and other groups that would be affected these changes. They indicated that they needed appropriate time frames to line up new sponsors. Bill C-42 recognizes that reality.
We also heard from the health community. Health organizations have been front and centre in the important work of the Government of Canada to help make Canada tobacco free and to ensure tobacco strategies and smoking cessation policies are in place. The Government of Canada acknowledges and supports the important work of the health community.
In particular I mention the work of the Canadian Cancer Society, Physicians for a Smoke Free Canada and the Non-Smokers Rights Association in the broader effort. Many health groups have been a part of pushing appropriately for tobacco reduction strategies and strong anti-tobacco policies and legislation. They have been the leaders in the action overtime to get the anti-smoking message out to Canadians. They have been powerful forces in encouraging Canadians to keep moving the tobacco agenda ahead and ensuring that Canada remains among world leaders.
Health organizations look at what we were doing in the bill. Most understand where we want to go and how we want to get there. Most support the directions we are taking in Bill C-42 toward the prohibition of tobacco sponsorship promotions. We recognize that most have concerns, and we are aware of those concerns.
They understand that the tobacco industry has constantly sought new ways to market its products. As we in government and previous governments have closed off old channel bylaws such as this one, we know the tobacco industry has found new channels. For example, tobacco companies have begun to use the Internet to support events marketing in Canada, something many could not have foreseen three or four years ago.
With that in mind, the Canadian Cancer Society identified amendments that it wanted to see in Bill C-42. During second reading debate many members of the opposition indicated support for those amendments. Many opposition members and I can tell the House that many members on the government benches also supported the amendments proposed by the Canadian Cancer Society.
Therefore, at committee, during the second reading clause by clause debate, we announced that we were not only intending to amend the bill, but we brought forward three particular amendments which were supportive of the proposals that had been made by the Canadian Cancer Society and supported by many, many others in the House and outside the House.
First, we proposed that October 1, 1998 would specifically be identified as the start date for the transition under this bill. In effect, that means that the five year clock has already begun to tick down on sponsorship promotions. If that amendment passes, as it did at committee, and this bill passes in the House, the clock has already begun to tick and the original intent of the timeline is firmly in place, being October 1, 1998.
Second, we proposed that the only events that could be grandfathered would be those that were already promoted in Canada. Although we never intended that it would be otherwise, this change makes it crystal clear that an event cannot be moved from the United States or Australia or wherever into Canada and be treated as if it had already been here.
Third, we proposed that only events that had been held in Canada during the 15 months prior to April 25, 1997 could be grandfathered. Once again it was never the intention of the government to allow events to be resurrected solely for their value as tobacco marketing vehicles. However, this amendment, which was agreed to by the committee and is presently before the House in the amended format of this bill, formalizes that intent and makes it absolutely clear as to the way this bill will function and operate.
The Canadian Cancer Society, as I said at committee, proposed two other amendments. One would ban point of sale advertising and the other would set a ceiling on sponsorship spending. We looked at these very seriously and, after review, we believed that both raised questions of feasibility and enforceability. For those reasons we listened very carefully to what witnesses had to say at committee. Today we have a bill before us that does not reflect moving on anything that we do not believe is either feasible or enforceable.
We launched the tobacco control initiative in 1996. We started by setting aside $50 million a year over five years. We have made a commitment to public education, another key component of our strategy, one that we believe is critical, and we committed yet another $50 million.
From the very beginning we knew that getting the greatest impact out of these resources would take co-operation with the provinces, territories, communities and non-governmental organizations. We will be designing and are designing and implementing the elements of the strategy in conjunction with all of those stakeholders who share with us the determination to move the yardstick.
Many years of anti-tobacco programming have given us a great deal of information about what seems to work. Those years have taught us that to battle against tobacco is a step by step process and that it requires action in many areas.
Bill C-42 is one of the many valuable contributions to that work and I look forward to the debate and the passage in the House of the next step forward, a step that will lead to a complete ban in tobacco sponsorship within five years.
