Luc Malo

[Minister of Natural Resources, June 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources herself admitted the seriousness of the situation concerning the secret documents left at a television station, so much so that she even offered to resign. She did force her assistant to resign and is letting her take the blame for the entire incident.

How is it that the Prime Minister does not consider this incident serious enough to accept her resignation? Is this not a clear demonstration of this government's incompetence and inconsistency?

[Tobacco Act, June 3rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to thank my colleague from Repentigny for his kind words about me. I could also say that I am extremely pleased with all of his efforts and his work in this House, particularly his work on the Standing Committee on Health, where I am pleased to serve with him.

The bill seems to completely disregard a number of new tobacco products that can be used by young people. Clearly, if we eliminate the market for flavoured cigarillos, manufacturers will try to find other ways to target young people to turn them into smokers.

Should the bill not contain more significant measures regarding the elimination of smokeless tobacco products? I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that. Does he not believe, as I do, that all the members of this House should do everything in their power to make the government yield on this?

[Tobacco Act, June 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very pertinent question. As I mentioned earlier, people try to find ways to quit smoking because they do realize that cigarettes are harmful to their health. Without naming him, I would like to congratulate one of my colleagues in this House, who has decided to stop smoking because it is important for his health.

It is important that, collectively, we try to find effective means of allowing our fellow citizens to make choices about their health even though we know it is difficult to stop smoking.

[Tobacco Act, June 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we are resuming debate on Bill C-32, An Act to amend the Tobacco Act. It is important to point out the alternative title. The bill contains the following note: “This Act may be cited as the Cracking Down on Tobacco Marketing Aimed at Youth Act.”

I wanted to point that out because it is clear that, in the mind of the legislator, this bill definitely fits in with the objectives set out in the Tobacco Act of 1997. In section 4(c), it states that the purpose of the act is to protect the health of young persons by restricting access to tobacco products.

Clearly, generally speaking, tobacco is very harmful to human health, as we know. It is clear that, as a society, we want the best for our young people and our children. We want to ensure that whatever they consume things is in no way harmful to their health, their development or their growth.

Clearly, and again generally speaking, no one wants to see someone who is still growing consume products that are harmful to health. It is only natural that a society like ours creates legislation to try to ensure only the best for our young people. That is why it is important to limit the use of tobacco products by our young people.

That is precisely what we are doing by prohibiting the sale of tobacco products to minors. That is the message we are sending to all our citizens, not only to the young people themselves, of course, but also to their parents and their peers. As we know, at a certain age, young people often use tobacco products to imitate others. We see people smoking and might then be inclined to smoke as well, since one of the rituals of some groups.

However, as I was saying, we have a collective responsibility to ensure that our young people do not consume tobacco products. That is what the law tells us, by prohibiting the sale of tobacco products to minors.

Furthermore, according to a 2007 Health Canada survey, close to 85% of merchants abide by this law. Of course, we would prefer that all merchants abided by the law. That would reinforce the message we want to get across to young people, their parents and their friends of legal age, which is to discourage them from using these products.

However, it is rather clear that merchants are generally aware of their roles as responsible citizens in promoting healthy lifestyles among our young people.

An important part of Bill C-32 is to restrict the use of little cigars, or cigarillos. It is true that young people who smoke them from time to time, may not be happy to learn that flavoured cigarillos will no longer be found on the shelves. However, it is clear that in this case, we are making this change to the Tobacco Act for their own good.

It is important to note that in 2000, Health Canada determined that cigarillos contain between 67% and 200% more tar than standard cigarettes, and that unfiltered cigarillos contain twice as much nicotine. We know that these harmful substances are addictive, and it is important to restrict the use of the products by young people as much as possible. It makes me smile to think of an interview I heard at the end of last week. Louis Lemieux, a morning host on the RDI news network was having a rather candid interview with Sylvie Fréchette, spokesperson for No Tobacco Day. He spoke about his own desire to quit smoking. He was even wearing a patch during the show. During the interview, Mr. Lemieux admitted that he did not think many people enjoyed smoking, but that it was difficult for them to quit because they were addicted.

We do not want our young people to develop an addiction to tobacco products during their development in adolescence. So it is important, in accordance with paragraph 4(c) of the 1997 Tobacco Act, to try to restrict access to tobacco products for young people as much as possible.

We have some interesting statistics from the Institut de la statistique du Québec. Our young people, both boys and girls, begin smoking cigars between secondary 2 and 3, that is, grades eight and nine. About 21% to 22% smoke cigars. We tend to believe that things are the same as in an earlier time and that only boys smoke; however, girls smoke now as well and that is not what we want for them.

Exactly what is Bill C-32 trying to do? It introduces three things.

It prohibits certain types of flavouring agents used in little cigars or cigarillos. Surely everyone has seen them. The little cigars now come in cute packaging resembling a package of candy or treats in all kinds of flavours that are unusual, interesting and colourful. This bill will eliminate these flavoured tobacco products from our stores.

It also prohibits the sale of single products. Young people do not necessarily have a lot of money. They often manage on odd jobs or perhaps gifts or allowances from their parents or grandparents. They do not necessarily have the money to buy a package of 20 or 25 cigars or cigarettes. At present, these flavoured little cigars are sold individually or in packages of three, five or eight. Subclause 10(1) of the bill reads as follows:

No person shall import for sale in Canada, package, distribute or sell cigarettes, little cigars or blunt wraps except in a package that contains at least 20 cigarettes, little cigars or blunt wraps or, if a higher number is prescribed, at least the prescribed number.

From now on, it will be much harder for minors to purchase these products because the larger packages will be more expensive.

With respect to advertising, current legislation allows tobacco product manufacturers and distributors to advertise in publications that have an adult readership of 85%. It is also interesting to note that there will be some advertising restrictions because we noticed that some of these publications were being distributed free of charge and were available to everyone, including minors. These publications may have been community, culturally or socially oriented, and their content may have been of interest to young people.

It is interesting to note that, to prevent these ads from reaching minors, legislators decided to take that option away from advertisers who wanted to put tobacco advertising in such publications.

I also want to point out that the Government of Quebec did not wait. I always like to remind people that the Government of Quebec and Quebeckers generally do the responsible thing when they realize that it is in the collective best interest and in young people's best interest.

The Government of Quebec has already implemented a number of rules to limit minors' access to tobacco products. According to Quebec law, a package had to include at least 10 units of a tobacco product and had to be priced above $5. As of June 1, that went up to $10. In Quebec, tobacco products are now out of sight of consumers, so when minors go into convenience stores, they will not see tobacco products that they might be tempted to buy.

However, I want to emphasize that, if we want to win the war on tobacco use among young people, we have to be much more open in our interpretation and enforcement of the measures we want to implement. If the per-unit cost is a factor for young people, then which currently available products will they buy? They will buy contraband cigarettes.

Everyone knows these cigarettes are easy to get and inexpensive. They are not, however, monitored in any way as far as ingredients or contents are concerned. What is more, they are not monitored for their ignition potential, either. If there is no clear, effective, vigilant and concerted attack on contraband tobacco, thanks to Bill C-32, young people will no longer be able to get cigarillos or flavoured tobacco products but they will be able nonetheless to turn to other products, such as contraband cigarettes.

Any one of us can look around near a high school to look at the ground where the kids hang out and find a number of butts. We will of course find some cigarillo butts, but we will also find a lot of butts from contraband cigarettes. If the legislator's clearly stated desire is to restrict the marketing of tobacco products to young people, and their access to those products, it is vital to attack contraband tobacco products in a vigorous and clear manner.

To date we have had no clear sense that the government is firmly committed to attacking this problem. I am certain that all the stakeholders will very definitely be in favour of much stronger and more effective measures against contraband. The survival of many businesses depends on it, of course, but it is also important to remember that all governments are increasingly concerned about tax leakage due to contraband. In addition, as I said earlier, it is impossible to analyze the content of the contraband products in circulation.

Another slight contradiction in the bill concerns the flavours covered by the bill. Why are menthol products still allowed? The bill puts them in a separate category, and manufacturers will still be able to make and sell menthol products, even though products flavoured with raspberry, vanilla, cherry, wild blueberry, peach, strawberry, cinnamon, honey, black cherry and rum are prohibited. Menthol is being kept because it is apparently not a flavour young people appreciate. But how do we know which of the flavours I listed young people like better than others? In my opinion, menthol should not be excluded.

Moreover, many new products will come on the market, and the government does not even make provision for them in the current version of the bill.

This is a flaw I noticed. It will be important to know why. When cigarillos came on the market, they were not very popular at all, just like other new products, but look how popular they are now.

In conclusion, I call on my colleagues to refer this bill to committee.

[Medical Isotopes, May 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, one would think that a country that supplies 50% of the world's medical isotopes would show some leadership. Yet the Liberal and Conservative governments have been burying their heads in the sand and have shirked their responsibilities when it comes to medical isotopes.

If we wanted any more proof that the federal government is incompetent when it comes to health care, this is it.

Will the Minister of Health admit that she has failed in her duties, especially after what happened in December 2007, by not ensuring that the world would never see another medical isotope shortage because of Canada's negligence?

[Medical Isotopes, May 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the shortage of medical isotopes has reached disturbing levels. Doctors and patients share the same concern and are not happy to be hostage to a shortage that was anticipated for a number of years. Faced with the human drama caused by this shortage, what does the Minister of Natural Resources do? She announces a plan to privatize part of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited.

We would like the minister to tell us how the proposed privatization will put an end to the shortage of medical isotopes.

[Manufacturing Industry, May 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, in 2007, after announcing plans to transfer some of its activities from Quebec to Ontario, ArcelorMittal announced the construction of a beam mill at Contrecoeur. Two years on, union members feel that it is time for the company to keep that promise. They have launched a large-scale regional mobilization to save the Quebec steel industry.

What should the Government of Canada—which has been ignoring problems in Quebec's manufacturing industry for years—be doing?

It should go forward with the Bloc Québécois' proposal to create a $4 billion fund to provide refundable investment credits to companies like ArcelorMittal that, because of declining production, have delayed planned investments. If they are encouraged to invest right away, they will be able to modernize their facilities and benefit fully from the economic recovery.

[Medical Isotopes, May 25th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it appears as though this government did not learn anything from the global shortage of medical isotopes caused by the sudden closure of the Chalk River facility in December 2007. A year and a half later, the entire world is going through the same crisis. Every day, thousands of patients will be deprived of an essential diagnostic tool.

What did the government do following the 2007 incident to ensure that the sudden, yet completely predictable, stoppage of the Chalk River reactor would never again destabilize health care systems around the world?

[Business of Supply, May 14th, 2009]

Mr. Chair, I wish I could believe the minister when he says that, basically, the government has received the recommendations and will do something. Back in 1996, the Auditor General had already identified a number of shortcomings, particularly with respect to information management. She said that the agency was still having problems in that area in 2008.

When the government accepts recommendations, does it do so just to get good press, just to enhance its public image, or does it then take action to achieve the goal?

Recently, during the listeriosis saga, we learned that self-regulation had become the norm and that pilot projects had been launched. Will budget cuts make the Canadian Food Inspection Agency more efficient and capable of fulfilling its mandate?

[Business of Supply, May 14th, 2009]

Mr. Chair, on another note, but still related to the appearance of the golden nematode in Saint-Amable, in chapter 4 of her 2008 annual report, the Auditor General of Canada indicated that the golden nematode appeared for the first time in Quebec in 2006. That was the first time the golden nematode had shown up in Canada. At the beginning of her remarks, she wrote:

The yearly pest survey plans of the Plant Health Surveillance Unit are not risk-based and focus almost exclusively on existing invasive plants, pests, and diseases rather than identifying potential new threats before they become established plant health emergencies.

Further on, she wrote:

Overall, the Plant Health Program lacks quality management processes in import-related activities key to keeping invasive alien species from entering and becoming established in Canada.

After I read the report, I wondered whether it was possible to conclude that, if the Canadian Food Inspection Agency had been much stricter in its assessment of exotic threats, the golden nematode might never have appeared on our agricultural lands. I would like the minister to comment on that.