Joe Volpe

[Tobacco Act, February 21st, 1997]

You are speaking up for the tobacco industry.

[Pest Management Regulatory Agency, February 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the department has already paid attention to some of those proposals.

After a year long consultation with all stakeholders, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency gazetted a fee structure that was

40 per cent lower than the one proposed by the government prior to the formation of the PMRA.

The member will know that these improvements are proof that the formation of a single agency has made a difference. Furthermore the PMRA has been designed one, to provide faster registration of products; two, to provide easier access to minor use products; three, to increase collaboration with other national agencies; four, for preparation of pest control strategies tailored to address specific-

[Tobacco Act, February 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, a point of order. We know that we are all present in this House, some of us through our rhetoric and others by our spirit and by our intent. I think it is important for the member opposite to recognize the rules of this House and to acknowledge that the presence of the minister is here all the time, especially in this bill.

[Tobacco Act, February 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that we have accepted the groupings of all of the motions, I wonder if the House would allow me just for a moment or two to reflect on the purposes of Bill C-71.

I would like to remind everyone that Bill C-71 first, foremost and almost completely is a health bill. It is important to reflect on that because everyone in this House is aware of the human and economic costs associated with tobacco use.

In Canada each and every year some 40,000 people suffer premature death as a result of tobacco use. There is a direct economic impact associated with that and an indirect cost as well. The direct economic impact is the cost of some $3.5 billion to the health care system, with an additional $11.5 billion in indirect costs associated with related illnesses that come with tobacco use.

I am sure there is not anyone in this House who has not had a relative or a friend negatively impacted as a result of tobacco use or environmental smoke. Those losses cannot be measured or quantified. The emotional attachment we have to our loved ones who suffer as a result of the use of tobacco impacts each and every one of us. We all have family members and constituents who feel it is important to deal with this issue.

Most important, tobacco use is a preventable source of much health damage. I want to underscore the word preventable. Behind the glossy advertising and a carefree lifestyle that sponsorships feed off, there is a record of disease and lives ended too soon.

Protecting the health of Canadians in general and especially young people deserves special consideration. Some 85 per cent of all smokers started to smoke before the age of 16. Those who will suggest in the course of the debate that this issue is about adult choices should keep that in mind.

I would like to speak to each of the motions and very briefly give an indication as to why they are where they are and what the government position is on each one.

Motions Nos. 1, 3, 8, 26 and 29 have been proposed by the Minister of Health to give greater clarity to Bill C-71. The objective of the bill is to protect the health of Canadians. Therefore it focuses primarily on matters which touch the public rather than the internal business of the tobacco industry.

To further illustrate this point, Motion No. 1 removes the word "seeds" from the definition of tobacco products in clause 2.

Clause 10 deals with the number of tobacco products in a package in the interest of providing small packages of tobacco products, like smokeless tobacco or cigarillos, that can be more affordable to underage youth. Motion No. 3 will allow the government to control the package size of tobacco products that are sold by weight rather than by unit. An example of this is the loose smokeless tobacco.

With Motion No. 8 we are making an editorial change to remove the word "the" prior to the term "health effects" in clause 20.

Motion No. 26 is also an editorial change to incorporate the word "within" rather than the word "in" at clause 40.

Finally, Motion No. 29 is an amendment to the French version of clause 45. It too is an editorial change to correct an error in the wording.

I urge all members to keep this in mind as we vote on these motions.

[Health, February 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, members of the House will know that Health Canada's priority is to ensure that products which are put up for sale are both safe and effective.

Every year the department authorizes several hundred uses of traditional herbal remedies and vitamin and mineral supplements. We have also dealt with a series of other items that have been less than safe. I cite as an example remedies containing ephedrine which were responsible for a number of serious illnesses in Canada. As a result a ban was imposed on the use of Ephedra in certain products.

Health Canada does permit the importation of products that meet regulatory requirements. In the event that products are prohibited, all importers can appeal to the department for a review. The review process is an open one.

[Tobacco Bill, February 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure it is very constructive to engage in these kinds of scare tactics. The legislation, and the hon. member has read it well, does not prohibit advertising. There are restrictions to the application of advertising, restrictions to which the advertising agencies around the world and especially in North America agree should be in place.

The member also knows there are even more severe restrictions in the United States. In fact, as of next year there will be an outright ban. No such thing is happening in Canada.

For the edification of the hon. member and for the information of this House I would like to draw to the member's attention what the Minister of Health in Quebec said about advertising which I will quote for the member's benefit. I will table it if the member would like. It says:

The minister said this: "Sponsorship is subliminal advertising. Cultural products are associated with a brand of cigarettes. This is a very strong way to encourage smoking, especially among young people".

[Tobacco Bill, February 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the member is completely off base.

The minister has responded to committee recommendations, a committee of which the hon. member was a participant. The minister has said: "All right, I will consider what the recommendations of the committee are, first of all, that the legislation passed as it was and second, I will take into consideration some of the concerns with respect to a transitional period in order to accommodate the concerns of all of those who depended on advertising". He has done that.

The minister has also taken into consideration the overwhelming opinion of the Canadian public that this is a health bill and that as a health bill it shall pass unchanged. The minister has also said: "I will be reasonable. I will receive further representations". He has received them and he has presented amendments that reflect weighing those recommendations in the balance.

[Krever Inquiry, February 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the hon. member opposite would try to draw sympathy for a very tragic situation.

He will recall-and if he does not, other members will-that it was Liberal Party members on this side of the House who called for the Krever inquiry in the first place. Second, they insisted it have access to all the information. Third, the department did comply. The hon. Minister of Health ensured all information would come forward.

All the preliminary recommendations from the Krever inquiry were complied with immediately as they related to the federal government. The only questions that came out of the Krever inquiry led to this question. Once the Minister of Health received the final report he acted on it immediately. That was on January 21 and on January 30 he handed that final report to the solicitor general.

There is no cover-up. Wake up.

[Krever Inquiry, February 7th, 1997]

I gather you do not want the answer, but I am going to give it to you anyway. It may not come down all that well. The department has co-operated both with the inquiry and with the commissioner with respect to access to information and in all cases complied fully.

What the member will also want to appreciate is that the department had in its possession a preliminary report on December 3, which is incumbent on governments. Members will appreciate that kind of report has to satisfy the requirements under the Access to Information Act which says that all investigations must be conducted in private. Those under investigation have a right to have a normal lifestyle until there is a final report.

[Krever Inquiry, February 7th, 1997]

It is not a priority of the Reform Party to have members in government respect to due process. What the member will appreciate is that the department followed all the guidelines dictated by-