Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to tell the House and all Canadians why we in the New Democratic Party oppose Bill C-42 and to propose some amendments that we believe are absolutely essential if the bill is to go forward.
For me and so many in this place today Bill C-42 is about kids. For me personally it is about my nine year old son Joe who wants to be cool like any kid in his age group, who but for the harping of his parents and for the good teachings and role models at his school might think that to be cool, to be liked and to be athletic he should smoke. Families, individuals and young people are willing to do their part to deal with the terrible addiction to tobacco and to speak out against rampant advertising of tobacco products.
The question for us today in the context of the bill concerns what is the role of government. What is the plan of Liberals in the House for meeting their responsibilities and obligations when it comes to such a fundamentally important public health issue as tobacco addiction?
Under the bill, tobacco companies will have another two years of unfettered lifestyle advertising to the sponsorship of arts, sports and cultural events. All kinds of studies have shown that this type of advertising is deadly effective in recruiting underage smokers. Boys and girls see their sports and music heroes associated with cigarettes. It makes tobacco look cool when in fact tobacco kills half its users. That is 40,000 Canadians every year.
This is a product that when used properly, when used as recommended, will kill and injure its users. It costs our health care system billions of dollars. It costs our mothers and fathers, sons and daughters their lives.
Yet this is what the government is proposing to do today. It is proposing to delay action on something as significant as tobacco sponsorship and advertising for another two years. The delay in terms of restrictions on sponsorship and advertising by tobacco companies combined with a delay in actions by the government to actually prevent young people from turning to tobacco that is so deadly are together causing us so much grief in the Chamber today.
I do not need to remind anyone in the Chamber or those across the country of just how serious a problem we have. By the Minister of Health's own statistics, every year 250,000 young people start smoking.
We could be moderate in our expectations and say that if even 10% of these young people do not start smoking it would amount to 25,000 of them. If through an effective program of education and communication we could convince half those people never to start again, we would save a minimum of 12,500 lives from cancers, heart disease and other tobacco related illnesses.
Today we ask the government to rethink this delay in terms of advertising by tobacco companies when it comes to sponsorship and advertising generally. We ask for more. We ask for the plan of action to actually prevent smoking among young people and for programs that will help young people to cease and desist when it comes to cigarettes. We are not getting the answers.
Today I plead with members across the way to come forward with specific plans to meet the commitments they have made publicly to Canadian people time and time again. I think specifically of the promise of the Liberal government in the 1997 election to increase emphasis on preventing illnesses and specifically to double its funding to $100 million over five years to provide more programs at the community level which prevent young people from smoking or help them to stop.
As I pointed out in the House earlier today, when we requested the information to show just how much of this money had been spent, the minister informed the House that for the year 1997-98 $200,000 of the $20 million a year or $100 million over five years had been spent, a tiny percentage of what the government promised and what is absolutely required to make the difference.
I also remind members that the government has made commitments internationally. Just a few days ago we received a press release that came out of the conference of the ministers of health of the Americas which agreed to take measures to protect children and adolescents from tobacco by regulating advertising and enforcing laws against cigarette sales to minors as a top priority.
I assume that this commitment has been made and now the government has an obligation to live up to it. The measures presented to us in the legislation today flies in the face of the kind of commitment and action so desperately needed on the part of the government, specifically the health minister.
On October 1, tomorrow, certain provisions of Bill C-71 come into effect. Let me remind members that Bill C-71 is the Tobacco Act passed by parliament in 1997. The provisions due to kick in tomorrow would restrict sponsorship advertising. For example, tobacco brand names could only appear on the bottom 10% of signs.
However, the bill before us today, Bill C-42, puts the whole thing off. There is one positive provision in Bill C-42 before us today, and that is the total ban on tobacco sponsorships in five years. The date is not entrenched in law. A deadline is not included in the legislation. The way the bill is drafted would allow cabinet to fix and unfix the date behind closed doors without ever consulting parliament or Canadians.
It is a built-in mechanism for delaying or gutting the bill altogether. It is designed to build support for a bill with the primary purpose of delaying the tobacco ad restrictions of Bill C-71. That in my estimation is underhanded and reprehensible. Nobody is falling for it. It means two more years of open season on Canadian kids. We cannot let that happen.
Bill C-42 allows tobacco companies to continue to place cigarette promotions near schools and playgrounds. Why did that provision have to remain in the bill? Why could we not begin the immediate restriction in terms of off site sponsorship advertising? We have all been exposed to what that kind of advertising means. I have seen it. I have photos of a cigarette ad near a playground in Edmonton. It is just metres outside the voluntary 200 metre limit set by tobacco companies.
Why not act on something as clear and helpful as restriction in retail stores, in any community location where young people gather? Ideally we would like to see sponsorship restrictions come into effect right way. We would like to see that in conjunction with transitional funding for groups and events that lost tobacco sponsorships.
Failing that, we would like to see Bill C-42 amended so that material promoting tobacco use is not visible to the public within 1,000 metres of a school, a place of worship, a community centre, playground, public park, recreation centre or child care centre. Why did the government not come forward with a safe zone proposal so that young children at schools, day cares and community centres would not be exposed to this kind of lifestyle advertising?
Related to that, why not support our suggestion in this bill to prohibit sponsorship promotion inside and outside stores where tobacco is sold? Children go to corner stores to buy candy, to buy comic books. Why are they inundated with glossy images of attractive events associated with tobacco?
We would like to see Bill C-42 amended so that it contains an actual date, a definite timetable in terms of when the clock starts ticking for this five year lead-up to a total ban. When can we expect precisely when this ban will come into effect? Why does the government not come forward or support our suggestion for a definite date such as October 1, 2003 and accept this as the fixed time in law that all tobacco sponsorships will finally end?
It seems to us the two year delay period should end on October 1, 2000, not at the will of Liberal cabinet ministers who sat on the boards of directors of tobacco giants.
We have to have guarantees that this timetable is entrenched in law. We cannot leave it to the whims of the government to be changed at will by order in council. The track record frankly of members opposite is not great in terms of meeting commitments when it comes to tobacco related legislation.
We also want to see this bill amended so that the grandfather provisions apply only to events sponsored in Canada as of April 25, 1997. As members know, right now as it stands, if a tobacco company sponsored an event anywhere in the world, whether in the United States, Malaysia or Paraguay, it can make a claim under the grandfather provisions.
We want to see Bill C-42 changed so that it reads that during the delay period sponsorship promotions would not be allowed to contain images of people, be misleading or be conveyed through non-tobacco goods such as hats or jackets.
We want to see representatives of tobacco companies required to appear before the health committee of parliament to reveal their recruitment strategies for smokers under 18. We want to see their documents which show they knew tobacco kills.
Earlier today I raise the matter of the timing of Bill C-42 vis-à-vis the provisions of the Tobacco Act being changed in Bill C-42 come into effect tomorrow.
It is my view that it is a contempt of parliament to have the introduction of a bill so late, knowing full well the timetable in terms of the previous tobacco legislation, Bill C-71, and the time it takes for this parliament to pass Bill C-42, putting it through all the proper stages.
Bill C-71, the Tobacco Act passed by parliament in 1997, takes effect tomorrow. Can Bill C-42 pass tomorrow? No, we all know that. It is impossible. There will be a gap of weeks in which the government will not enforce the law.
I guess in my most cynical moments I could say that maybe this is in keeping with the kind of arrogance we have seen from the Liberal government on so many issues, especially over the past number of weeks pertaining to the silencing of peaceful protesters to protect a bloody dictator's pride. Surely we could all agree that the rights and health of Canadians should always come before the profits of multinationals, selling hazardous products or the embarrassment of tinpot dictators.
I remain concerned about the actions of this government with respect to the legal void that has been created. I heard the Speaker's ruling today in response to my matter of privilege and I invite members of the Liberal government in questions and comments to address this issue.
I would like a member of the Liberal government to actually answer what happens if the act is not in force by October 1, 1998. What happens if Bill C-42 is not passed and proclaimed tomorrow?
According to the minister's own briefing notes, members of the Liberal government have been advised to say given that my intentions are now known, it would be appropriate for the department to administer this legislation as if the amendment were in the effect as of October 1, 1998.
I encourage members to address this topic. This is a serious matter for the work we do as parliamentarians and it is a serious matter for all Canadians concerned about government actions and inactions with respect to this very important issue.
I would like to acknowledge the work of many in society today with respect to dealing with this very serious public health issue of smoking and tobacco.
I have benefited from the advice and encouragement of many in our communities, in my own constituency and organizations representing thousands of Canadians right across this country. I think it is important for us in parliament to acknowledge the work of those people and those organizations.
In particular I thank the Canadian Cancer Society, Physicians for a Smoke Free Canada, the Non-Smoker's Rights Association and the many health organizations and concerned parents from everywhere in this country who have worked so hard for stronger tobacco laws for the sake of our health and for the sake of our kids. We all owe them a debt of gratitude.
All of us in the New Democratic Party are very clear today about our position on Bill C-42. On behalf of all members of our caucus, I pledge our support for an end to the recruitment of our young people to a lifelong addiction to smoking.
We look forward to pressing for effective amendments to this bill and addressing the very serious issue of tobacco marketing at the health committee.
