Joe Volpe

[Tobacco Legislation, March 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I am pleased to table, in both official languages, proposed tobacco access regulations, tobacco labelling and reporting regulations and tobacco seizure and restoration regulations with respect to Bill C-71.

[Health Canada, March 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, that report refers to situations in 1992. The minister and the department have taken steps since then.

I remind the member exactly what has happened since then. The report already acknowledges that the minister has taken steps. First, he has taken a look at new guidelines for promotions, acting positions and training for supervisors and managers.

What has happened as a result? The member ought to acknowledge that the percentage of people who have come from those minorities, which he rightly defends in this instance, has risen to 5.9 per cent.

A true reflection of the matter is that we are, in the department, moving well beyond expectations that even the member might set.

[Tobacco, March 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to understand that this confirms what the Government of Canada has been saying all along.

We presented a comprehensive strategy on combating tobacco use and its very serious and negative health impacts. It is a bad admission to make, but we are relieved that there is an indication, at least by the industry if not by the other parties, that we have been right all along. Tobacco is a cause of cancer and of heart disease and the companies have especially targeted young people.

Our bill, C-71, has attempted to address those issues and we are happy that at least the public is beginning to turn in that direction at last.

[Food And Drugs Act, March 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is being irresponsible by highlighting a couple of instances that hide the fact that Health Canada is being extremely responsible and diligent in the exercise of its obligation to ensure that all products that come on the market are both safe and effective for consumption, especially when there is a medicinal claim attached to them.

We cannot blame our officials for doing the job entrusted to them and demanded of them by Parliament.

[Canadian Polar Commission, March 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for recognizing that Health Canada is concerned about the health of all Canadians.

He will also recall that Health Canada is actively involved with aboriginal people and other sister agencies at the federal and territorial levels in matters that concern the environment through the Arctic environmental strategy and the international Arctic monitoring and assessment program.

The member will also recognize that the Canadian Polar Commission is actively in receipt of resources from the federal government. In fact the conference received supplementary benefits from the government.

In the spirit of co-operation, when the specific health officials who had been invited found that they could not meet the timetable required they contacted the lead health agency in the area, the Northwest Territories department of health, and arranged to have the health sector represented by health officials from the territories.

They did an admirable job. I thank the member for recognizing the health concerns of Canadians were well represented.

[Tobacco Act, March 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member who has just spoken about Bill C-71. He gave us a few issues to think about and I would like to congratulate him.

The hon. member spoke about one thing that our friends in the Bloc Quebecois are ignoring. While he, and we, are speaking about the health of Canadians throughout the country, wherever they may live, the members of the Bloc Quebecois are ignoring the health of young and old alike. They are still confusing the issue of sponsorships with the issue of health. I would like to thank the member for coming back to the topic that concerns us today, which is a bill that deals with health.

He emphasized certain very important themes, obviously, but I would like to ask him a question. It is somewhat political, I admit, but it is also necessary.

When the member talks about the importance of a comprehensive strategy to combat a preventable illness he addressed a series of items and he made some recommendations. They have been considered by committee and they will continue to be debated in this House.

He pointed to the export tax which regrettably was tried a few short years ago and did not work. We would be prepared to consider that or at least his views on the matter. More important, the member ought to know that when there was a reduction in the taxes on tobacco a few short years ago there was as well a commitment of $180 million to provide funds for education, enforcement, promotion and research. Of those moneys spread out over four years, he will know that in the course of the last three years there was $104 million and $24 million currently available for this year.

[Tobacco Act, March 6th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I compliment my colleague for highlighting a couple of points. Unlike some other members of the House he was here to appreciate an amendment was put forward by a member on this side of the House which dealt with the concerns of the Bloc and the Reform on the question of regulations. That amendment has passed and regulations will be available for scrutiny by the committee. It is a precedent setting item that works to the advantage of all who want to take a look at the complete impact of the bill.

On this issue my colleague, who has always spoken on behalf of his own constituents, will have to address the bill as it stands. The speaker who proceeded him talked about the importance of education to curbing behaviour, to modifying behaviour and to weaning people away from the evils of tobacco use. I am wondering if while

he is defending the interests of his growers is he also accepting that education and by extension controlling-

[Tobacco Act, March 6th, 1997]

It was pretty well self-interest.

[Underground Economy, March 5th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to speak on this matter. I know the member will be delighted to hear me repeat some positions.

The member for Lambton-Middlesex has a concern regarding the PMRA. As I stated in my response to her on February 21, the Minister of Health has been reviewing the various proposals of groups interested in the matter.

The member will no doubt be happy to learn that on February 27, a mere six days after my response to her query, the Minister of Health wrote to the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. In that letter he addressed a number of issues. I will be happy to table a copy of the letter for the member and for the House.

The member will see from the letter that the PMRA will be co-operating with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture on a post-implementation impact analysis. This would monitor prices and product withdrawals and assess the impact of the two factors on competitiveness.

The PMRA has actively participated in the pesticide program of the OECD which is working toward global harmonization of test protocols and data requirements leading to reduction in industry costs.

The minister also indicated in his letter that the PMRA has no intention of re-evaluating all the products every three to five years, nor of re-evaluating products that have acceptable data bases to support their safety and effectiveness. The purpose of re-evaluation is to bring older databases up to modern standards, identify and examine human safety and environmental concerns, and ensure continued efficacy. I am certain the member will and does support these goals.

It is also important to note that the PMRA has made significant improvements to the review process for new submissions. Based on these improvements the PMRA has projected a 40 per cent reduction in costs for reviewing new product submissions over the next six years and has already built this into its proposed fee schedule.

There are other issues addressed in the letter. The member for Lambton-Middlesex has been aggressive, insistent and persistent on the matter. Others who like her have an interest in the issue should review the correspondence. I think they will find it to their satisfaction.

[Tobacco Act, March 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to address this motion. Maybe I can address a few issues that have been raised so far in the debate. I draw members' attention to the motions before the House which I will comment on briefly.

Motion No. 2, moved by the member for Macleod, suggests that it become a criminal offence for young persons to possess or attempt to possess a tobacco product in a public place. Creating such an offence of possession would be contrary to the government's policy approach. As the member indicated, the onus is on the vendor.

We are trying to focus control into the commercial activities of retailers so the onus would rest and vest with the retailer. I suggest that making it illegal for young people to possess tobacco products would subject hundreds of thousands of young people to potential criminal prosecution. That may be the intended objective of some members, but at this stage we want to focus on the commercial relationship that is initiated by the retailer offering this product for sale.

Motion No. 4 has been proposed by the Minister of Health to clarify an amendment put forward in committee. Clause 12 was originally amended in committee to allow the use of vending machines with locking devices to be continued. The amendment now before us clarifies that vending machines with locking devices will be permitted only in a bar, tavern or a beverage room. Cigarette vending machines have been restricted to these locations since the coming into force of the Tobacco Sales to Young Persons Act in 1994 and we want to continue that practice.

The reference to a prescribed security mechanism is preferred to the phrase that is currently proposed "that is activated before each transaction" as expressed in the amendment adopted by the Standing Committee on Health. In this way the government can determine through consultation the most appropriate types of security mechanisms with a view to advancing the objective of limiting youth access.

Motion No. 5, moved by the member for Lévis, would also amend clause 12. The member suggests that vending machines be allowed to remain in places where youth do not have access, which is one of the venues where prescribed tobacco advertising and sponsorship promotions will be permitted. This amendment should be rejected on the grounds that on occasion youth do gain access to places where they are not permitted to be by law. Obviously the availability of tobacco products through unsupervised transactions poses a more immediate peril than does the appearance of tobacco promotions.

Finally, Motion No. 30 is proposed by the member for Macleod. It would set a maximum fine for young people who are acting as retailers and selling cigarettes illegally to other youth. The member's concern that young persons not be subjected to harsh penalties is addressed by Bill C-71. The bill sets maximums rather than minimum fines. Furthermore, a young offender between the ages of 12 and 18 years of age would be dealt with according to the Young Offenders Act, which provides for the use of alternative measures such as community service.

Mr. Speaker, in my remaining time I would like to address some of the comments made by members opposite on Friday, February 21, during the first part of report stage debate on the bill. On that date the member for Lévis stated that the Bloc shares the objectives of the Minister of Health on the issue. However, both he and his colleagues made statements which point to an opposite position. By the way, it is a position which was raised again earlier this morning in debate.

I believe I am quoting the member for Lévis correctly when he said "that the government shows no compassion, no willingness whatsoever to deal with the issue of sponsorships". The government has proposed an implementation period, so clearly this is incorrect. He said that without the regulations nothing in Bill C-71 can be implemented. This too is clearly wrong and, in fact, false.

The House will be surprised to learn that the member for Drummond is the health critic. She talked about the economic benefits of cultural and sports organizations. She is correct, there are benefits. She forgets that the government has not banned tobacco sponsorship. She overlooks that the government has proposed an implementation period. But more seriously, she and others on her side of the House have ignored the fact that there are 12,000 tobacco related deaths in Quebec each year.

They ignore that there are 38 per cent of Quebecers who are smokers. That average is higher than anywhere else in the country.

Members on this side of the House would like to hear those members' justifications for ignoring that there are 76,000 Quebec youth who take up smoking each and every year. They urge us to do nothing about that statistic.

There is a cost. Members will appreciate this in its appropriate context. There is a cost of some $530 million to the Quebec health care system each year because of tobacco related illnesses. How do members opposite from the Bloc justify their opposition to Bill C-71 in the face of these facts?

On Friday, February 21 the member for Trois-Rivières tried to convince himself that sponsorship promotion does not affect attitudes toward smoking. Obviously he did not consult with the minister for health in Quebec because he has an entirely different view.

He and his colleagues ignore an extensive and growing body of international evidence confirming that young people are aware of and susceptible to promotional practices. It also confirms that it is not possible to promote the brand of cigarette without simultaneously promoting tobacco products and their use.

Members will know that 85 per cent of smokers and 83 per cent of non-smokers in the 10 to 19-year old age group see sponsorship promotion as a way of advertising cigarettes. This is the age group in Quebec starting to smoke at a higher rate than in any other province in the country. Furthermore, sponsorship promotion has been the predominant form of tobacco products promotion in Canada since the advertising ban in 1988.

On February 21 the member from Timiskaming criticized the provisions of Bill C-71 which limit the access of youth to cigarettes. The Bloc must now answer regarding whether or not it is advocating the sale of tobacco products to youth. Let us address that issue.

The member for Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies stood in this House on February 21 and said that everybody recognizes that smoking is not healthy. Great. He said that we must do all that we can to prevent our young people from starting to smoke, but not this.

The member for Berthier-Montcalm said that Quebecers will suffer most from this bill. Quebecers are already suffering the most. If they accept the figures that I have given, in terms of the health component, they should answer their own rhetorical question.

Quebecers smoke more and are dying faster than people in any other region of the country as a result of tobacco induced illnesses. Right now in Quebec there are up to a million citizens who will eventually die of tobacco related causes. The members opposite want to defend a continuation of the status quo. That same member said that cigarettes are good because they put $3.5 billion into the government's treasury but he did not appreciate that they take out some $15 billion in direct and indirect costs.

The member for Argenteuil-Papineau said that the government did not take into account the testimony heard before the health committee. How false a misrepresentation that would be.

The committee recommended that the Minister of Health consider an implementation period for the sponsorship promotion restriction. That is before this House today.

The same member reminded the House on February 21 that the Bloc voted for the bill on second reading because it recognized the validity of the government's objectives.

If it did, are the principles of Bill C-71 today less valid than they were in December of last year? Are there fewer Canadians being affected by tobacco than there were last-