CONTENTS
Thursday, March 6, 1997
Bill C-85. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 8694
Bill C-86. Motions for introduction and first readingagreed to 8694
Bill C-71. Motion for third reading. 8696
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 8721
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 8725
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 8726
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 8727
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8730
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8730
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8730
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8733
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8733
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8734
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 8734
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 8734
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8735
Bill C-71. Consideration resumed of motion for thirdreading 8737
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 8738
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 8749
Bill C-71. Consideration resumed of motion for thirdreading 8749
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 139; Nays, 37 8755
(Bill read the third time and passed.) 8756
Bill C-304. Motion for second reading 8756
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 8760
8693
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, March 6, 1997
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
The Speaker: Order. Before we proceed to the orders of the day
I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised by the
hon. member for York South-Weston on Wednesday, February 19,
1997 concerning the availability of budget documents prior to the
budget presentation made by the Minister of Finance on Tuesday,
February 18, 1997.
[Translation]
I want to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, the hon. member forSt. Albert, the hon. member for Kootenay East, and the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance for their
comments in this matter.
[English]
In his submission, the hon. member for York South-Weston
argued that many of the provisions of the budget had been
announced by the government prior to the speech of the Minister of
Finance and that budget documents were available approximately
15 minutes before the minister rose to make his budget
presentation. He contended that these two actions were in marked
contrast to previous practice.
[Translation]
The member also maintained that the privileges of members of
the House are impinged upon when information is released
prematurely. Finally, he asked the Chair to review the whole matter
of the budget lock-up.
[English]
Since the beginning of this Parliament, hon. members have
witnessed an important change in the budget process. On February
7, 1994 the House adopted amendments to its standing orders
which included the insertion of new Standing Order 83.1 to provide
for so-called ``prebudget consultations'' by authorizing the
Standing Committee on Finance to consider and make reports on
proposals regarding the budgetary policy of the government.
Accordingly, the Standing Committee on Finance has engaged
on three occasions in a process of public consultation, during which
its members were authorized to travel and to listen to the concerns
of Canadians. Pursuant to Standing Order 83.1, the committee
tabled three reports: the first on December 8, 1994, the second on
December 12, 1995 and the third and most recent on December 5,
1996.
On the issue of budget secrecy, perhaps it would be helpful to
remind all members of what Speaker Sauvé pointed out in a
decision she gave to the House on April 19, 1983 at page 24649 of
the Debates:
-budget secrecy is a political convention. So also is the practice whereby the
minister presents his budget in the House before declaring it in any other public
forum.
I agree with Speaker Sauvé. It would not be proper for the Chair
to get involved in the interpretation of budget secrecy, nor the
matter of the lock-up.
As for the issue of privilege with respect to the matter raised, let
me quote again Speaker Sauvé. In a decision which can be found in
the Debates of November 18, 1981 at page 12898 she stated that:
-a breach of budget secrecy cannot be dealt with as a matter of privilege. It might
constitute a very important grievance for members. Such action might have a very
negative impact on business or on the stock market. It might cause some people to
receive revenues which they would not otherwise have been able to obtain. All of
these are possible consequences of breaches of budget secrecy, but they have no
impact on the privileges of the member. They might do harm-irrevocable in some
case-to persons or institutions, but this has nothing to do with privilege.
(1010 )
Speaker Fraser was also asked to rule on budget secrecy. On June
18, 1987, at page 7315 of the Debates he mentioned:
Budgetary secrecy is a matter of parliamentary convention. Its purpose is to
prevent anybody from gaining a private advantage by reason of obtaining advance
budgetary information-The limits of parliamentary privilege are very narrow and it
is not a responsibility of the Chair to rule as to whether or not a parliamentary
convention is justified or whether or not the matter complained of is a breach of that
convention. That is a matter of political debate and not one in which the Chair would
wish to become involved.
8694
I concur with both Speakers in that a breach of budget secrecy
has nothing to do with parliamentary privilege. Therefore, in the
case presently before us, the Chair cannot determine that the hon.
member has been in any way hindered in the performance of his
parliamentary duties.
Consequently, it is my decision that there is no prima facie case
of privilege.
[Translation]
I thank the hon. member for York South-Weston for raising his
matter.
_____________________________________________
8694
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to six petitions.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Paul Martin (for the Minister of Industry, Minister for
the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of
Western Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for
the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.):
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-85, an act to amend the
Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 and the Office of the
Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Ron Irwin (on behalf of the President of the Queen's
Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-86, an act to amend
the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety
Board Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act.
(Motion deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
(1015)
[English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have three
petitions to present today. The first petition suggests that Bill C-33
was debated with undue haste and will undermined the natural
family. This petition is from people in my constituency of
Macleod.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition points out that the GST on books is unfair and that there
was a promise to remove it from reading material.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the final petition
points out that the white ribbon against pornography week be given
more coverage here in Parliament. I agree with all these petitions.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a number of petitions here.
The first petition deals with profit from criminal activity. It is
being denounced by these constituents and they point out there
ought to be absolute certainty that this does not occur.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition is similar commentary with respect to pornography
and its negative effects on society. It is not only denounced, it is in
fact suggested that this should not be happening because it is
extremely dysfunctional and degrading to women, children and
others.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
third petition wants to ensure that there are no increases in taxes on
gasoline. The petitioners feel that it is already too high.
The fourth petition is with respect to reading materials. These
petitions want no GST on reading materials, something that I have
advocated for some time. They also suggest that reading and
learning materials could be zero rated.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
last petition calls on members of this House to make upgrading of
the national highway system possible. I am pleased to provide my
support for all these.
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a petition on behalf of the
8695
Canadian Council of Railway Operating Unions. This petition is
signed by communities all the way from Windsor, Ontario to
Revelstoke, British Columbia.
What the petitioners are pointing out is that the viability of the
CCROU as an effective bargaining unit for the members has been
undermined as a result of the government's interference in the
collective process via the maintenance of the Railway Operation
Act, 1995.
What they are asking for is that Parliament and the government
restore meaningful collective bargaining to the process. They call
on Parliament to recognize the importance of free and unfettered
collective bargaining by enacting a bill which would restore the
union's right to strike and with it the company's right to lock out.
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have the pleasure of introducing another petition signed
by petitioners mainly from Fort Qu'Appelle and the Balcarres
district.
These petitioners point out that there are still over 30,000
nuclear weapons on the earth. They point out as well that the
continuing existence of nuclear weapons poses a threat to the
health and survival of human civilization and to the global
environment.
They call on Parliament to support the initiation and conclusion
by the year 2000 of an international convention which will set out a
binding timetable for the abolition of all nuclear weapons.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
three petitions today. The first petition comes from Regina,
Saskatchewan.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that our police officers and firefighters place their lives at risk on a
daily basis as they serve the emergency needs of all Canadians.
They also state that in many cases their families are often left
without sufficient financial means to meet their obligations.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to establish
a public safety officers compensation fund to receive gifts and
bequests for the benefit of families of police officers and
firefighters who are killed in the line of duty.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition comes from Calgary, Alberta. The petitioners draw
to the attention of the House that managing the family home and
caring for preschool children is an honourable profession which
has not been recognized for its value to our society.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue
initiatives to assist families that choose to provide care in the home
for preschool children, the chronically ill, the aged or the disabled.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
final petition is from Dingwall, Nova Scotia. The petitioners draw
to the attention of the House that the consumption of alcoholic
beverages may cause problems or impair one's ability, and
specifically that fetal alcohol syndrome and other alcohol related
birth defects are 100 per cent preventable by avoiding alcohol
consumption during pregnancy.
(1020 )
The petitioners pray and call on Parliament to enact legislation
to require health warning labels to be placed on the containers of all
alcoholic beverages to caution expectant mothers and others of the
risks associated with alcohol consumption.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have three petitions to present.
Two of the petitions have to do with the national highway
system, the first of which notes that 38 per cent of our national
highway system is substandard. Therefore the petitioners call on
Parliament to urge the federal government to join with the
provincial governments to make the national highway system
upgrading possible.
The second petition, which is also on the subject of highways,
notes that 52 per cent of the price of gasoline is composed of taxes,
while only 5 per cent of the revenue is reinvested in the highways.
Therefore the petitioners call on Parliament to not increase the
federal excise tax on gasoline and allocate its current revenues to
rehabilitating our crumbling highways.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the third petition concerns reading and literacy. The petitioners
note that the 7 per cent GST now applied to reading material is
unjust. The petitioners ask Parliament to zero rate books,
magazines and newspapers under the GST.
I support their petition.
Mr. Janko PeriG
(Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am glad the
Minister of Health is in the House today to hear me present this
petition.
Five hundred and fifty petitioners from my riding of Cambridge
pray and request that the government make a commitment to renew
the national AIDS strategy and maintain the current level of
funding.
8696
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
8696
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.) moved that
Bill C-71, an act to regulate the manufacture, sale, labelling and
promotion of tobacco products, to make consequential
amendments to another act and to repeal certain acts, be read the
third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to rise and speak
to Bill C-71. There are many in the House today who have
experienced much debate on the issue of tobacco regulation.
Several of us who sit here today were here in 1988 for debate on
what was then Bill C-51, the Tobacco Products Control Act.
I would like to thank my previous colleague, the former minister
of health, the Hon. Jake Epp, who brought forward Bill C-51, for
his commitment to tobacco regulation and for his efforts in
legislating in this area.
Almost seven years ago Minister Epp rose in the House to speak
on Bill C-51 at third reading. I quote from that speech:
The purpose of the bill is to provide a legislative response to a national public
health problem of substantial and present concern. It is intended to protect the health
of Canadians in light of conclusive evidence implicating tobacco use and the
incidents of numerous debilitating and fatal diseases.
Although we on this side of the House have on several occasions
found cause to differ with the party of the Hon. Jake Epp, Bill C-51
had the support of my party.
We did have concerns about the legislation at that time. We
wanted to make certain that the bill went as far as possible to
restrict the access and exposure of tobacco products.
(1025 )
My hon. colleague, the minister of heritage, spoke to those
concerns throughout the debates on Bill C-51. While we wanted to
ensure the legislation was effective, we never wavered in our
support for the principles of the bill. Today we have before us a bill
which speaks to the commitment of my party and of the
government to the health of Canadians.
Tobacco is a preventable source of much health damage to
Canadians. Behind the glossy advertising and the carefree lifestyles
that sponsorships feed off is a record of suffering and of lives ended
far too soon. Who in the House has not been touched by the
devastating toll of tobacco use? We have all had relatives, friends
or acquaintances who have been sick or who have died because of
tobacco related illnesses.
As debate on Bill C-71 has already revealed, smoking has
complex and diverse impacts and as the research mounts all around
the world we are learning much more about the effects of that use.
We are coming to understand more of the factors that influence the
decision to smoke and yes, the decision to continue to smoke.
Let me underline one tragic fact. The decision to smoke is being
made overwhelmingly by teenagers. Some 85 per cent of all
smokers started before the age of 16. Those who suggest that this
issue is about adult choices should keep that in mind.
What faces these young smokers? A lifetime of weakened health
for one thing, because we know that tobacco kills. We know that
research shows a death toll of about 40,000 lives of Canadians cut
short each and every year. We know that tobacco is associated with
about 30 per cent of all cancer in this country.
If that were all the price we paid because young people fall prey
to the lure of tobacco use, it would be too much. But there is more.
Tobacco has economic and social costs as well. One of the most
obvious economic impacts is the cost of health care for people who
suffer from the effects of tobacco use. We face those costs from a
number of sources, the most basic of course is the cost to our
medicare system.
I think all political parties in the House understand Canadians
believe very strongly in our medicare system and I believe all
political parties in the House know we need to improve the way we
use that system. That means reducing unnecessary drains on the
system.
Tobacco must be the best example of a preventable cost to
medicare. But we estimate that tobacco use costs our society
approximately $15 billion each and every year, about $3.5 billion
resulting from the kinds of direct health care costs I have been
talking about.
I could talk about how those costs are incurred, about hospital
days spent, visits to doctors and prescription costs, about time
spent in long term health care facilities. We could spend
considerable time talking about the illness that doctors link to
tobacco consumption. It could be cancer, heart disease or a lung
disease such as emphysema.
8697
We must remember and take to heart that the smokers who are
addicted and who are perhaps sick today because of their habit
probably started to smoke when they were very young, probably
when they were teenagers.
As we debate the bill today yet another generation of Canadian
youth is being exposed to the lure of tobacco products. The new
tobacco customers are young Canadians. As we sit in our places
today let us try to remember the feeling of young people. Young
people feel themselves to be immortal. They want to be adults and
do things that seem adult like.
(1030 )
Being a teenager is a time to assert one's independence. It is a
time when the opinions of friends and peers can weigh more
heavily on a decision than the advice of teachers, parents or even
physicians. The most common reason cited for starting to smoke is
the influence of friends, better known as peer pressure. A 13-year
old or a 14-year old cannot easily conceptualize the possibility of
getting heart disease or cancer in 30 or 40 years.
Let us think of our own youth whether we grew up in Quebec,
Ontario or the maritimes and how immune as young people we
thought we were to diseases such as heart disease, cancer and
others. If the young get hooked the addictive power of nicotine will
do the rest. It is as simple as that.
We know that one in three young Canadians smoke and that half
of them will ultimately die prematurely of a tobacco related
disease. We know that youth are the most tragic casualties of
tobacco use and addiction. We know that youth are the most
vulnerable to tobacco promotion.
I wish to present to the House some facts that ought to be
examined both in light of their substance and in terms of the
devastating effects they can have on young people: 29 cent of 15 to
19 year olds and 14 per cent of 10 to 14 year olds are currently
smoking. Let us imagine a 10-year old daughter or a 13-year old
son smoking. Do they visualize the possibility of cancer, heart
disease, emphysema and other lung diseases? No. Smoking among
teens aged 15 to 19 has increased by as much as 25 per cent since
1991.
According to the 1994 youth smoking survey, 260,000 children
in Canada between the ages of 10 and 19 began smoking in that
year. Figures like these which are being replicated in other
countries have prompted their governments to legislate in the area
of tobacco control. The World Health Organization has classified
youth smoking as a global pediatric epidemic. That is why the
government's priorities in developing the legislation and our
overall tobacco strategy have been focused on young people.
The tobacco industry claims it does not advertise to encourage
youth to take up smoking. That is what the industry says. It claims
it is only encouraging the switching of brands among older
established smokers. The focus of advertizing, says the industry, is
an audience of entirely adult tobacco consumers.
If we walk the streets we see the billboards and the paraphernalia
in terms of caps, jackets and T-shirts. We can check billboards in
close proximity to schools and other institutions for young people.
These billboards and paraphernalia are certainly not a campaign
directed toward the senior citizens. The campaign is for young
people.
An hon. member: Oh.
Mr. Dingwall: I know the hon. member opposite hates to hear
the facts, but let me share something with him. I know he will enter
the debate. Then we will have an opportunity to hear his wisdom
and intellectual fervour. Perhaps he will listen to one of his own
who said on this issue that the tobacco industry said it did not
advertise to encourage youth to take up smoking.
(1035)
Vincent Fischer, president of Symbiose, can qualify as being the
guru of sponsorship in Quebec. As he notes, the studies are based
on common sense. He said:
If tobacco manufacturers invest $60 million, they are not doing so for the good of
their health. They are doing so because they are getting a return on their investment.
That is not me. That is an advertising executive in the province
of Quebec.
As I said, the focus of advertising, says the industry, is an
audience of an entirely adult tobacco consumers. The information
all around us suggests and proves that it is not so.
I again refer hon. members to the article in La Presse of
yesterday.
An hon. member: Oh.
Mr. Dingwall: I know the hon. member opposite does not like to
hear what I am saying. He wishes to avail himself of the
opportunity to heckle. I would encourage him to participate so that
we can have an intelligent debate of the subject.
An hon. member: You are asking for too much.
Mr. Dingwall: Perhaps I have gone too far in suggesting the hon.
member might be able to engage in debate of the subject matter in
an intelligent way. I will reflect upon my earlier assertion and
perhaps at the end of the debate I will have a few words to say to
my friends opposite.
Young people are sophisticated enough to understand the
purposes of tobacco company marketing tools. Health Canada's
1994 youth smoking survey found that 85 per cent of young
smokers and 83 per cent of non-smokers agreed that
advertisements for events
8698
sponsored by tobacco companies were a means to directly advertise
cigarette brands.
I recognize many of my colleagues opposite have expressed
concern about the link between sponsorship and youth smoking. I
would like to take a few moments to discuss that issue.
The National Cancer Institute of Canada has issued a report
entitled ``Tobacco Marketing and Youth: Examination of Youth
Attitudes and Behaviour on Tobacco Industry Advertising and
Sponsorship''. This is Canada's premier cancer research
organization. It concluded an exhaustive review of the available
science not only in Canada but indeed beyond our borders.
The institute found there was substantial evidence that young
people are aware of and respond to cigarette advertising.
Advertisements present images that appeal to youth and are seen
and remembered by them.
The United States will be implementing a full ban on
sponsorship promotion in August 1998. I would like to share the
following points from the federal registry of August 28, 1996.
The FDA has found that image based advertising is particularly
effective with young people and that the information conveyed by
imagery is likely to be more significant to young people than
information conveyed by other means in advertisement.
The FDA also pointed to studies showing that children are
exposed to substantial and unavoidable advertising, that exposure
to tobacco advertising leads to favourable beliefs about tobacco's
use, that advertising plays a role in leading young people to
overestimate the prevalence of tobacco use, and that these factors
are related to young people's tobacco initiation and use.
In essence it is a way in which to present an image and an
environment that smoking is okay, that smoking some how is sexy,
and that smokers should not worry about getting some form of
disease in the future. It is a very well carved and focused strategy
by the advertisers but in particular the tobacco companies.
(1040)
The FDA also looked at sponsored events and found that the
effect of sponsored events on young people who attend such events
was enormous. Advertising affects young people's opinion of
tobacco products, first, by creating attractive and existing images
that can serve as a badge of identification; second, by utilizing
multiple and prolonged exposure in a variety of media; and, third,
by associating the product with varied positive events and images.
The World Health Organization also recognized the link between
tobacco sponsorship and consumption. It has found that the tobacco
industry uses the sponsoring of sports and entertainment to
complement and/or replace other marketing activities to reach
large audiences and to associate their products with positive
images.
I am not standing here today to tell adults how to live their lives.
I am not telling them to quit smoking although I would hope they
would. I am not banning tobacco in this country.
Some have suggested that only a ban on tobacco would really
address this public health challenge. There are seven million
addicted smokers in Canada. If we were to ban this product, can we
imagine the chaos and smuggling that would take place? They are
addicted to a substance which according to scientific reports is
more addictive than heroin. They are addicted to a product that
would be prohibited if introduced on the market today. It is a
product that kills when used as directed.
It is not a new product. It is a product with generations of use and
an insidious hold. To be reasonable and to be responsible we have
to make every effort to prevent youth from beginning to smoke.
Experts on tobacco generally agree it is far more productive to
discourage young people from experimenting with smoking than
trying to place several legal restrictions on adult smokers. Our
strategy must be to reduce and ultimately eliminate tobacco use.
We introduced a blueprint in December 1995 whereby numerous
consultations took place. We consulted widely with provincial and
territorial governments, the health community, tobacco
manufacturers, collateral industries, sports and cultural groups, and
concerned Canadians. There were over 2,700 submissions in
response to the blueprint. Now, 15 months later, I stand before the
House at third reading of Bill C-71. The bill contains reasonable
measures that will restrict advertising and sponsorship promotion.
Let me make it perfectly clear that we are not banning
advertising. We are not banning sponsorship promotion. Instead the
bill will place restrictions on these promotional activities which
will reduce the exposure of cigarettes in Canadian society.
The government has taken into consideration the concerns of the
arts and sports events that rely on tobacco company sponsorship.
We have set an implementation period for the sponsorship
restriction provisions. We will bring them into force in October
1998. This is effectively a two-season adjustment period.
Let me remind the House that the completion of the
implementation period equates to a banning of sponsorship or
sponsorship promotion. I challenge some of the national media
outlets and their spokespersons to stop acting in a grossly negligent
manner in pursuing a track of misinformation about the bill and
about the effects of the bill. It is just not so.
8699
The coming into force of section 24 in October 1998 will mean
the implementation of restrictions on the extent to which
sponsorship activities can be promoted.
I have seen the various legal opinions that the tobacco industry
has circulated about Bill C-71. One interpretation asserted that the
bill would prohibit persons under 18 years of age from being hired
at retail locations where tobacco products are sold. The bill creates
no such prohibition and does not deal with criteria for vendors and
employees in any way. The bill focuses on the ages of the
purchasers. It focuses on sales to minors. Other interpretations
have alleged that maximum fines and imprisonment will
automatically ensue for any contravention of the act on the day
following its coming into force.
(1045)
In reality, such interpretation ignores the establishment of an
enforcement policy in my own department. This policy deems
prosecution as a last resort to achieve compliance. It includes
warning letters and consultations prior to any consideration of legal
action. If members opposite are asking me to do the exact opposite,
I will reflect on that.
I could probably stand here all day and talk about the various
legal opinions tobacco lobbyists have circulated. We know they are
the heart and soul of members of the Bloc Quebec, the lobbyist. I
find that the unholy alliance of the Bloc Quebecois and the tobacco
lobbyists is rather insidious. For every 15 minutes that this debate
continues, one more Canadian will join the role of those who died
sooner than they would have otherwise, all because of tobacco use.
Let me add one comment regarding those legal opinions. I have
publicly offered a voluntary preclearance mechanism. What I have
proposed is that when individuals or groups are apprehensive about
possible prosecution under this legislation, when they want to
ensure that their advertising or their sponsorship promotion fits
within restrictions, they can come to my department and discuss it
with our officials.
Before event organizers start making unfounded allegations
about what they can do and cannot do, I encourage them to review
the restrictions with my department.
It is important not to lose sight of the strong support for Bill
C-71 which comes from every region of the country. The Canadian
Medical Association supports the legislation: ``We are looking for
expedient passage of Bill C-71 because we know that the future
generation of Canadians must be protected from the number one
cause of preventable death and disease in the country''.
The president of the Canadian Cancer Society also wrote: ``I am
writing to express my support for Bill C-71 and to urge you and
your ministry to do everything possible within legal frameworks to
help end the tragedy of death by tobacco''.
I have also received the endorsement of the Coalition québécoise
pour le controle du tabac. It represents over 561 organizations
across the province of Quebec. The number includes 238 towns and
municipalities across the province of Quebec. It includes the
Association of Cardiologists of Quebec, the Quebec Dental
Association, the Quebec Association of Family Physicians, the
Pathologists Association of Quebec, the Quebec Paediatrics
Association, the Quebec Medical Association, the Quebec Public
Health Association, the Quebec Lung Association and the Quebec
division of the Canadian Cancer Society.
My friends opposite on one hand supported Bill C-71 and the
principles at second reading and have now done a major flip-flop,
the hypocrisy of the Bloc Quebecois. They must be accountable for
this flip-flop. They must be accountable to those 561 organizations
that support the provisions of Bill C-71.
To the hon. members opposite, their day of reckoning is coming
and it is coming fairly soon. They will pay the price for their
opposition to the health of the Quebec people, particularly the
young people of the province of Quebec.
It falls to my colleagues opposite with the same force that it falls
to me as the Minister of Health. We cannot, as members of
Parliament, overlook the unavoidable toll of tobacco.
(1050 )
In Quebec alone, the members of the Bloc Quebecois, in their
unholy alliance with the tobacco companies and the lobbyists, are
saying to 76,000 young people who will begin smoking this year
they do not care about the health of les enfants des quebecois. That
is what they are saying by their opposition to Bill C-71. This is 30
per cent of the beginning smokers in the country as a whole.
Smoking is more common in the province of Quebec than in other
parts of Canada and the hon. members know it. They reject outright
the efforts of the hon. minister of health in the province of Quebec,
one of their own, Jean Rochon.
It is a flip-flop today. Why? It is to get the media headlines each
and every day in order to save their political skins in the next
federal election.
Thirty-eight per cent of Quebecers are smokers. In the rest of
Canada the rate is 31 per cent. They are both unacceptably high. As
many as three million people alive today in Canada will die from
tobacco related diseases, and one million of those are in the
province of Quebec. That is far too many. These are reasons
enough to do all we can to reduce tobacco consumption in this
country.
I know a number of my colleagues are waiting to speak to this
bill. They share my concerns about reducing tobacco consumption
in Canadian youth. However, let me take a few moments to
8700
acknowledge the efforts of some of the people who have helped get
us this legislation here today.
I refer of course to my parliamentary secretary. The member for
Eglinton-Lawrence certainly deserves a lot of praise and a lot of
recognition. He has brought his experience and judgment to this
bill and I wish to thank him for it. I also want to thank the hon.
member for Burin-St. George's who chairs the Standing
Committee on Health. I want to thank all members of that
committee regardless of their political affiliations.
I would be remiss in my remarks if I did not single out one
member. In this House we have differed on many issues and I
would suspect that we will continue to differ on many other issues.
However, I must give credit where credit is due, to the
non-partisanship demonstrated by the hon. member for Macleod.
He has stood in his place time and time again and attacked me on a
variety of different issues, but when it comes to this issue of
smoking, tobacco and the control of tobacco use in this country, he
has not stood with the Minister of Health; he has stood with the
young people and I think he is deserving of praise from all of us in
this Chamber.
I want to thank the members of the Bloc Quebecois, in particular
the member for Lévis. I know they have concerns with the bill but I
am confident that at the end of the day they will put the health of
Canadians and, yes, the health of Quebecers first and foremost.
I say to members of the Bloc I know that many of them who are
over there are very uncomfortable with the decisions that have been
made by the leadership of the Bloc Quebecois. I know that. I say to
my hon. friends opposite that it is never too late to change one's
mind and do the right thing. I am sure that the children in the
province of Quebec will be forever indebted to members of the
Bloc Quebecois if they were to exert the kind of leadership that
others in the province of Quebec have exerted in terms of
supporting children and supporting the health of those children in
the province of Quebec.
(1055 )
Finally, I wish to say a few words about the other place.
Hopefully later this day this bill will receive third reading. It will
leave this Chamber and go to another chamber. I would suspect,
having the respect that I have for the other chamber and its
members, they will examine this bill in an expeditious way, but in a
comprehensive way, and that they too will see the purposes of what
this bill is about. It is about the health of Canadians. It is about the
health of children. It is about the health of children in the future.
I want to thank all members of the House who have participated
in this debate. I know at times it has been acrimonious, but I want
to say to all members that we can be a part of something which is
very important to the country. I enjoin all members to join with me
in that act.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Health asked us to reconsider our decision to vote against the bill at
third reading.
Before he leaves us, I would urge him to be as intelligent as he
would like us to be and make his bill more flexible. It would then
be possible to achieve the objectives we in the Bloc Quebecois
supported at second reading, because the objectives of this bill are
admirable, except in the case of devices like taking away
sponsorships. Sports and cultural events so dear to the hearts of
Quebecers are being deprived of these sponsorships, including the
Montreal Grand Prix and all the international festivals such as the
Just for Laughs festival and the jazz festival.
Vancouver also has a jazz festival. Fireworks attract thousands
of people from Canada and Quebec. As you know, international
events attract many tourists as well. These events give Quebec and
Canada international visibility.
The Montreal Grand Prix is the third biggest sports event
broadcast throughout the world, after the Olympic Games that are
held once every four years and the World Cup. The Formula I
Grand Prix comes right after these two. This country is lucky to
have a Grand Prix event, to be seen throughout the world and to say
to the people of the world: ``Welcome to our country''.
This country is supposed to be renowned for its quality of life,
although, unfortunately, Canada's child poverty rate is one of the
highest among Western countries, among the G-7 countries. That is
not something to be proud of.
When the minister explained his objectives, we agreed with him,
as you know. That is why we voted for the bill at second reading.
The minister is an experienced parliamentarian, as you are, Mr.
Speaker, and knows that at second reading the debate is on
principles and objectives. That is why we supported the bill at
second reading.
However, the minister should take the time to read the only
speech by the only opposition member authorized to speak in the
House at second reading. The hon. member for Portneuf also
wanted to speak at second reading, but the hon. member for
Macleod, after only a few minutes, a few seconds, called the
previous question.
(1100)
This caused some confusion in the House and, as a result, there
was only one speaker for each party at second reading. The
minister, after hesitating for months and months, as his predecessor
had done, tabled this bill before Christmas. The debate at second
reading was on December 5.
8701
This is a venerable parliamentary strategy. A government that
wants to pass controversial bills will table them at the end of a
session, either in December or in June. They know that, at
Christmas time, people are busy with their Christmas shopping.
The minister purposely tabled his bill at that time because he did
not want this bill to give rise to debate.
The Reform Party also did not want a debate, to the point that,
when the minister announced that the bill would be tabled on
December 5 at his news conference of December 1, the
spokesperson for the Reform Party, who had not read the text, as no
one had a copy at that point, immediately agreed in principle to
ensure that the bill was passed as quickly as possible. That takes the
cake. An opposition party that gives its approval before even
reading the bill and its clauses.
When the Minister of Health uses a member of the third party
who takes such positions, I think he is putting his credibility on the
line. It makes no sense. How can you support a bill if you have not
read it? In any case, we in the official opposition do not make a
practice of doing so and we are not going to start now. We take the
time to read the bills.
We supported the minister's objectives, but had reservations
about sponsorship. I said so in my speech as the official opposition
critic on tobacco. This week the Prime Minister quoted my
remarks, noting that I had said we supported the minister's
objectives.
That is true, but the Prime Minister should have finished reading
and mentioned that we had reservations about the restrictions
imposed on the sponsorship of sporting and cultural events and
that, if none of the changes proposed were accepted by the Minister
of Health or the government, and I said it even then, we would
oppose the bill at third reading. We did not reverse our position, as
the minister suggests, we did not do an about-face under the
influence of the tobacco lobby.
I suggest the Minister of Health look to see who gives the most
to the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party is funded by the tobacco
companies, and is not bothered by the fact-rather interesting
behaviour. On one hand, it is acceptable for the Liberal Party to
receive contributions from tobacco companies and, on the other
hand, we are being accused of being the tobacco companies'
accomplices. We are nobody's accomplices.
The Bloc Quebecois supports cultural and sports events. To this
extent, we are their allies because their very survival is at stake.
This is what we support. The government side is implying all sorts
of things. No matter how calm the minister sounds in appealing for
common sense on this health issue, we will not let him pull the
wool over our eyes.
Who is the most opportunistic, the minister or us? Who, as he
said, is being hypocritical, when the Liberal government while
waging a war against tobacco products does not dare put them on
the list of dangerous and illegal substances? And why not? Because
the federal government alone stands to make $2.6 billion from
taxes on tobacco products, as the budget reveals. The other
jurisdictions in Canada will reap another $2 billion, for a grand
total of $4.6 billion.
(1105)
They will not recognize tobacco as a dangerous and illegal
product; that would be the logical thing to do but no, they want the
revenues from that dangerous but nonetheless legal product.
We can very well hold a debate on the risks associated with
smoking. At the second reading stage, during the speech I made as
the official opposition critic in this area, I did admit that tobacco
was a dangerous product, as demonstrated by scientific studies.
The most serious study on the subject was conducted by scientists
at the University of Texas and the Beckman Institute in California.
They found a direct link between lung cancer, some other forms of
cancer, and smoking.
That study refers to a carcinogenic substance and to the P-53
gene, which weakens the body's immune system, its resistance to
illnesses that may cause cancer in the long term. We do recognize
that. Statistics show that, every year, 42,000 people in Canada,
including 12,000 in Quebec, die of cancer or lung diseases related
to smoking. We do admit there is a problem.
But should we proceed within a legal framework on this issue?
Yes, we could establish a legal framework for a government
initiative, program or policy. But then again, that legislation would
have to be enforceable, balanced, well designed, sensible. It would
have to provide for a well structured implementation over time so it
can be enforced. Because a law people do not comply with is
unenforceable as it would require much more than the 40
inspectors we now have to make sure it is implemented. At present,
in all of Canada, only 40 federal inspectors supervise the
enforcement of the existing legislation. There already is a
legislation providing for the monitoring of convenience stores to
ensure they do not sell tobacco products to young people under 18.
This legislation is not new; it already exists. We are adding a few
details like the identity card, but the law already exists.
Yet, a serious study shows that, in Canada in general, it is not
being enforced in 25 per cent of cases, while in Quebec the rate is
almost 50 per cent, apparently because federal inspectors do not go
there much. Why should we pass a new law when we know that the
existing one is neither enforced nor enforceable? Why?
Why is this legislation unbalanced? I will give you an example.
The government does not appeal enough to the accountability of
citizens, young people and parents. For instance, for corner stores
8702
and other retailers who sell tobacco products, this legislation
provides for significant fines that I find excessive, while the
offender himself would not be fined.
Let us take the example of the legislation on alcohol. How does
it work? Of course, fines are imposed on those who serve alcohol to
minors but, at the same time, minors are also penalized: they are
arrested and must go to court. You will tell me that it is a youth
court, but they still have to appear before the judge. And parents
who do not abide by the legislation on alcohol, at least in Quebec,
are also questioned.
But that is not the case here. Yet, according to the health minister
and the parliamentary secretary and many others, tobacco is more
dangerous than alcohol. However, we know that drinking and
driving may create problems; many accidents are caused by
alcohol. Why this inconsistency?
Here is another inconsistency. In the health committee, of which
I am a member, we see there is some responsiveness. I am not
taking a final stand on this, because it has not been discussed in our
caucus yet. For example, there are some who think that marijuana
and hashish, which are soft drugs, should be legalized. Why?
Because, these people are saying: ``If they were legal, they would
be better controlled. The government could better ensure the
quality of the products and they would be less dangerous for young
people''.
(1110)
Does making drugs illegal reduce the use of so-called soft drugs
and even harder drugs? On the contrary, make them illegal and use
increases. Is legislation effective enough in itself to prevent
increased use of tobacco, alcohol or any other substance?
We could go back in time and look at what happened when
alcohol was made illegal. In the United States, in the 1930s, they
had something called prohibition. Being my senior, Mr. Speaker,
you will recall the incredible impact banning alcoholic drinks had,
the resulting increase in contraband and crime for instance. I am a
baby boomer, but my parents often told me stories about those
days.
Without getting into Al Capone in Chicago and all that, we all
remember stories about that era; there were even movies made
about it. A purely legal or legislative approach is not enough to
fight something that may be bad in itself.
Before sitting on the health committee, I was the official
opposition's critic for youth and training. That is the line that
should be developed, that should have been developed. It was
suggested earlier that the Bloc Quebecois had somewhat
ambiguous, hypocritical and paradoxical positions. I have a figure
here showing that, when he announced he was imposing a special
surtax on tobacco two years ago, the Minister of Finance told us it
would bring in $180 million in additional revenue, which would be
used to fund this great prevention campaign and ensure better
control. How was this $180 million used? In fact, $40 million was
spent.
I am looking over the figures for this year. But, this year, what is
the government doing? It is legislating. With this legislation, given
how concerned the minister, his parliamentary secretary and the
Liberal members are about public health, we would have thought
the government would have used at least that $180 million. Yet,
only $10 million was spent on prevention and another $18 million
on control and inspection, for a grand total of $28 million. That is
far from $180 million. What did they do with the rest of the
money? Where have these millions gone?
I will tell you what happened to these millions. There were
spent, among other things, to promote Canadian unity, to the tune
of $23 million for flags, sweaters and all kinds of gadgets. I can tell
you about it, because a provincial final is currently being held in
my riding, as part of the Quebec Games. I try to attend this
extraordinary event as often as possible, and I urge people to the
same and go to my riding of Lévis, because it is the first time these
games are organized by a RCM, a group of municipalities getting
together to put up a major event.
What did the federal government do? The heritage minister came
barging in and, pretty well at the last minute, announced a
$100,000 subsidy, but with one condition: the Canadian flag would
have to be up there and the athletes would have to wear sweaters
that promote the flag and Canadian unity. We are talking about the
provincial finals of the Quebec Games. Can you believe it? The
heritage minister has some nerve.
With the $63 million that it is spending, hers is the only
department that got a budget increase this year, when the
government was cutting elsewhere, including in transfer payments
to the provinces for health, the notorious Canada social transfer,
which now also includes post-secondary education and social
assistance. The government is indeed making deep cuts in these
areas.
On the other hand, it spends on things like that. Oddly enough,
this $63 million is roughly the same amount that sports and cultural
events will lose, those $60 million in sponsorships, if the bill is
passed this evening and if the Senate then gives it approval.
Given that difference of only $3 million, the heritage minister,
who is just as convinced as her colleagues are, that is the health
minister and the parliamentary secretary, should have taken that
$63 million to compensate organizers of sports and cultural events,
since the amounts are basically the same.
(1115)
But no, they put Canadian unity ahead of health in this case.
When Bloc Quebecois members talk about the survival of cultural
8703
and sports events, we are told that we are putting culture and the
promotion of sports ahead of national health objectives.
The government, however, promotes its flags, handing them out
for free, and we in the Bloc Quebecois are expected to say nothing.
Do not count on it, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps not you personally, you
have an objective, non-partisan role, but through you, those
members who make appeals to us, the minister who speaks from
the heart, who says to the Minister of Canadian Heritage: ``Listen,
if you are as concerned about the health objective as I am, take part
of the $63 million, if not all of it, and apply it to that''.
First of all, the health minister should be consistent. Let him take
the $180 million set aside for prevention, promotion and education.
Let him so something constructive. Then we would take him
seriously when he talks about our judgment, our humanity and the
health objectives. Then we would take him seriously.
The minister should himself get serious and spend the money
accordingly on sports and cultural events, and at the same time, in
addition-because he is apparently sure of his objectives
concerning young people-he would then take an important
dimension seriously.
A number of studies show that, in 80 per cent of cases, young
people decide whether or not to take up smoking around the age of
15 or 16. The main reason young people smoke is not because they
have seen a logo for tobacco products on a car racing at speeds of
200 kilometres an hour and up; that is not the reason at all. It is not
because of a logo seen at the site of a sports or cultural event, for
these events draw more adults than young people. This is not why
they smoke. The primary reason, in over 50 per cent of cases, is
because their friends smoke. They want to copy what their friends
are doing. They want to be one of the gang, so they start smoking.
That is the main reason they start.
If the minister were serious, he ought to accept our
recommendations. During the clause by clause examination, we
said ``If it is peer pressure that gets young people to start smoking,
why not make use of this real social fact and provide funding for
youth centres and other youth organizations that are so much in
need of funding?'' These organizations have had their funding cut,
federal funding in particular. There could be programs focussed on
prevention, young people speaking to others in the schools, telling
them not to smoke, for young people are very much aware of the
issue.
I have had experience with youth-related issues. Before I was an
MP, I always worked in youth organizations, and I have a fairly
good idea how young people think about certain things. I am not
worried, not pessimistic. I think our young people are becoming
increasingly aware about certain things; we could even learn a
thing or two from them.
Who has more influence on today's young people than other
young people? Sometimes I revert to an old habit, and throw out a
piece of paper. How do young people react to this most of the time?
They say: ``No, no, not there. It goes for recycling''. Our children
make themselves responsible for recycling at home, but they also
talk about it at school, and they talk to us about the environment.
The environment is important to our young people, and smoke is an
environmental contaminant.
Since the minister is no longer here, I shall now address the
parliamentary secretary. Why does he not encourage his minister, if
he is serious about this, to put the planned $180 million, at least
that much, into programs for young people?
(1120)
Why not give more money to anti-tobacco groups? I have
personally met representatives of all groups and all lobbies,
whatever you want to call them. The Bloc Quebecois, unlike the
minister, took the time to listen to everyone. Not just one group but
everyone, including representatives of anti-tobacco groups. There
are intelligent people in those groups, people with sincere
convictions.
Far be it from for me to insult people who have done a wonderful
job telling young people about the dangers of tobacco use.
Unfortunately, although the minister tried to avoid this debate by
putting the matter before Parliament at a time when the public's
attention was elsewhere, it happened just the same. The debate was
there during our Christmas parties. The subject was discussed at
family gatherings. And after the holidays, people started to realize
what was at stake and that they might lose the Montreal Grand Prix
and other major cultural and sports events that were very popular,
and they started to demonstrate their opposition, as we saw in
Montreal this week.
If there had been a healthy debate, properly set up, and if there
had been consultations conducted properly, well planned and
unbiased, not this steamroller approach so Quebecers and
Canadians would not realize what hit them. If instead of this
inappropriate approach to lawmaking, the government had shown a
spirit of transparency and openness and respect for different
opinions.
Those who support tobacco company sponsorships of cultural
and sports events could have talked to the public. People I spoke to
personally, in private, said they were appalled at what was
happening to cultural and sports events. They are appalled. They
have nothing against those who promote culture. Of course, when
they defend a position, opinions tend to crystallize, and finally no
reconciliation seems possible. But what do you expect? The
minister talks to only one side, he hears only one side of the story
and will not allow any consultation.
8704
When you want to draft a bill, you organize forums, you have
consultations and meetings in the provinces, you ask the provinces
whether they agree, to get their co-operation, because the subject
we are talking about today is our health. Incidentally, I may
remind you, and I am sure you know, but it seems we often forget
what it says in the Constitution about health. Perhaps the Minister
of Heritage should have the Constitution printed in pamphlet form
so Canadians across the country will know what is in the
Constitution. Those who read them would see that health is a
provincial matter. Where does the word ``province'' appear in the
bill?
With my colleague from Drummond, in committee, when the
bill was being studied clause by clause and on many occasions, I
tried to say: ``Include at least `in co-operation with the provinces'''.
But no, the Minister of Health wanted to be the defender of health
and take his place in history as the man who had an extraordinary
anti smoking bill passed. He wanted credit for it, so much so that,
seeing the consternation it caused in his own caucus and in cabinet,
the minister said, in public, before anti smoking lobbies, that, if
this bill were not passed before the elections, he would put his
liberal beliefs, his convictions and his membership in the Liberal
Party on the line. He even suggested to people that they vote
against the Liberal Party in the next elections.
In doing so, he put pressure on the other members of cabinet.
There are people on the other side, members from Quebec,
including the member for Outremont, the Secretary of State
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development in
Quebec, who said suddenly: ``Hang on, I am powerful, influential, I
will get the minister to change his position. You will see''. He
listened to the representatives of sporting and cultural events,
because, several months later, he discovered the economic
importance of it all: $200 million in economic benefits for the
Montreal region, 2,000 jobs.
(1125)
A few months later, after the holiday season, he discovered that
it could adversely affect him in his own riding. He had not thought
of it before, but he must have been told so in some Christmas
parties. So the Secretary of State responsible for the Federal Office
of Regional Development in Quebec finally realized that.
The president of the Liberal caucus in Quebec realized that, but
as he could feel the heat, he suggested that an election be held.
Now, another president of the Liberal caucus is making promises.
The extension was one year, he asked for it to be 18 months, and he
won. After that, he thought he might just as well ask for a five-year
period, but he was turned down. The Minister of Health told him it
was enough.
Of course, even if he is from Quebec, from the riding of
Saint-Maurice, the Prime Minister himself then had to support the
decisions of his Minister of Health. He was compelled to state that
the most important thing for him was Canadians' health. Come on.
We know him well. We saw him in action during the referendum
campaign. He said he would make changes and he did try a little,
but as soon as the provincial premiers did not agree, that was the
end of his efforts. A little motion was moved in the House of
Commons.
Oh yes, we know him. He is the one who, when he was Minister
of Justice and acting on behalf of former Prime Minister Trudeau,
imposed patriation of the Constitution from London and the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Today, he tells us that
Canadians and Quebecers' health is what counts the most as far as
he is concerned and that he will make this issue a plank in his
electoral platform.
The Minister of Health reminded us of that when the Liberal
Party agreed to delay application of some restrictions for 18
months. He will hear about it during the electoral campaign. The
voters will talk about it, the official opposition too.
The bill is so imprecise and deliberately confused that it leaves
room for all kinds of interpretation and speculation. Everybody is
confused. For example, the organizers of the Grand Prix de
Montréal claim that, according to this bill, if passed, people could
not even watch the Australian Grand Prix this weekend on
television.
Sponsorship of events such as the Grand Prix is a package deal. I
have no respect for tobacco companies who use blackmail but,
because of this bill and because of the anxiety caused by its
adoption, Quebecers may not be able this weekend to watch
Jacques Villeneuve race in the Australian Grand Prix. He is the son
of Gilles Villeneuve, and the potential world champion driver this
year.
This morning, the plane I took from Quebec City was delayed
due to a terrible storm. People recognized me and told me they
were hoping I would rise and speak about this, because they want to
see Jacques Villeneuve compete in the Australian Grand Prix over
the weekend. They absolutely want to see him.
It is not a totally sure thing. This is a very particular event, very
current, and it just goes to prove that the 18-month extension
proposed by the president of the caucus applies only to clause 24.
The parliamentary secretary knows quite well that it applies only to
clause 24 and not to clause 31.
What is in clause 31? It deals to retransmission. The 18-month
adjustment period does not apply to that clause. I am sure that some
Liberal members are not aware of that. Therre are not many of
them, but maybe they are listening.
I urge them to do as the member for Outremont did, even if it is a
bit late; I urge them to read clause 31 of Bill C-71 which they will
pass tonight. It deals with retransmission. They will see that the
18-month adjustment period does not apply to clause 31. Clause 31
8705
is really special, it means a tobacco company's logo cannot appear
on a car.
(1130)
If this is allowed, if a tobacco company's logo or name appears
on the car, TV networks will have to distort the image. It would be
somewhat similar to what is done in a news report when witnesses
want to remain anonymous for whatever reason. Their image is
then distorted to ensure they are not recognized.
Imagine the next formula 1 race with TV cameras trying to
distort only the cigarette company's name appearing on the car so
that it cannot be recognized. Imagine that Gilles Villeneuve is
sponsored by a tobacco company, we will not be able to see him. If
he comes first, I imagine they will go to the runner-up, but since
most racers are sponsored by tobacco companies, the only one they
might be allowed to show will be the one who came in last. This
does not make sense. Usually people are interested in the driver
who comes in first not last. This is rather odd.
But it is the truth. The member who is grinning should look at
clause 31 and ask a lawyer to review it. If he is of the opinion that
what I am saying is wrong, the member should have his health
minister make a solemn statement to that effect in this House
before we adjourn, as he did the other day, with good reason.
The job of the opposition is to criticize, but sometimes we have
to recognize that the minister does set the record straight. For
example, some people in Quebec, and perhaps elsewhere, are
saying that it would prohibit persons under 18 years of age from
being hired at convenience stores. Indeed, it was not clear.
We wondered, we asked questions and so did Reform members.
In a solemn declaration, the minister said: ``It is not in the bill. It is
not in, but I commit myself to not prohibiting it by way of
regulations''. He said it would not make any sense. He took that
solemn pledge. We are asking him to do the same for the
broadcasting of Grand Prix auto races. We want him to say:
``Section 31 is so convoluted that you could read into it one thing
and its opposite''.
That is saying quite a lot. If I had more time, I would prove to
you that this bill has been put together in such a way that some
sections are totally incomprehensible. Nobody can understand
them.
An hon. member: Not even the minister.
Mr. Dubé: The minister wants to go to the Supreme Court with
that. We are in this situation because parts of previous legislation
dealing with sponsorship was struck down by the Supreme Court.
From my office in the Confederation Building, I can see the
Supreme Court. Maybe I am prejudiced, but it seems to me that it is
always leaning to the west. But I may be over-reacting.
First, the Supreme Court is in Ontario and most of the judges
come from Ontario. Most of the time, when there are decisions
involving Quebec, we are in the House. We have become rather
suspicious when it comes to relying on the Supreme Court to
interpret a piece of legislation. It is not that we are suspicious by
nature, it is because we have facts. There is a lot of evidence which
prove that Bill 101 was badly tampered with by the Supreme Court.
But that is not what we are dealing with this morning.
For a minister to be this tentative on each and every aspect of a
bill is unusual indeed. I asked my colleague, the hon. member for
Chambly about this, since he sits on the committee that deals with
the scrutiny of regulations and the administration of legislation. He
told me that they have rarely seen an act worded the way this one is,
where the minister is so afraid his act will be thrown out of court
that he reserves the right to regulate each and every aspect of the
issue, instead of mentioning his power to make regulations only
once, as usually is the case. The word ``may'' is used over and over
again, all over the place, regarding sponsorships, sales, the way the
product should be regulated, and so on.
The minister is so concerned that he will be making regulations
on just about everything. But at the same time, it has to be said that
the minister is grabbing a great deal of power in an area which, in
theory, is none of his concern, since this is a health issue. Again,
the provinces are not even mentioned.
(1135)
The minister has arranged it in such a way that he will be pulling
all the strings and retaining full power through regulations. The
thing is, we would like him to table his regulations in this House.
We would have liked him to do so while the bill was before us, but
at least he should do so very soon. In fact, we have moved an
amendment to that effect.
The official opposition has acted constructively, proposing a
series of regulations at the clause by clause review stage of the bill.
We succeeded in having one agreed to, regarding vending machines
with remote controls. We had to negotiate long and hard for this
and we were quite proud of ourselves. We won this point in
committee, but now, at report stage, what do we see? The words got
changed around to read only vending machines with locking
devices. That is what would be allowed, even in bars where
customers under the age of 18 are not admitted. They want to put
tobacco into the category of illegal and dangerous substances and
treat it as such, requiring that it be kept under lock and key, even in
places where children are not admitted.
I am running out of time. I will not go into histrionics, I will
simply encourage the members across the way to do their duty as
lawmakers and, unlike the hon. member from the Reform Party, not
to rush into supporting a bill before getting a copy of the bill and
reviewing it thoroughly, particularly clauses 31 and 53, where the
presumption of innocence is reversed and the onus or burden of
8706
proof that should be on the accused is on the victim instead of the
other way around.
I will conclude on this: read your bills, as it is your duty as
Liberal members, before voting for or against them.
[English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I stand in the
House today as a parliamentarian who truly believes that we should
have small government with as few rules and regulations as
possible and that personal responsibility is very important. I try to
judge every piece of legislation by those yardsticks.
On this issue I could be and have been accused of forgetting
freedom. I could be accused of forgetting the fact that individuals
who decide to smoke should have that ability and that
responsibility. Therefore I would like to explain to my colleagues
in the House and those people in Canada who are interested in this
issue why I have chosen to support and vote for Bill C-71.
I do not often trust statistics, especially statistics that are
gathered by those on the various sides of an issue. I made my own
graph of cigarette consumption per capita for Canada and the
United States between 1970 and 1994. I used figures that are
completely independent of any side on this issue.
The graph illustrates that over the past 20-plus years the
incidence of smoking in Canada and the U.S. has been declining,
and declining considerably, in lock step in fact. The graph is
fascinating. Since I cannot show it in the House, I can only
demonstrate with my hand that the graph is like a toboggan hill
with both Canadian and American per capita consumption rates in
lock step coming down.
For the previous 15 years there had been no interruption in that
downward slope. However, in 1993 the Canadian smoking rate
went up while the U.S. smoking rate did not. The increase in the
Canadian smoking rate makes the slope of the graph look like the
lip on a ski jump.
Two things have happened in Canada during the time I have
spent in this House: a tobacco tax rollback, where the price was
reduced in some provinces; and the supreme court striking down
the Tobacco Products Control Act, which was designed to prevent
smoking.
I also independently found the figures on overall Canadian
tobacco consumption which include cigarettes sold over the
counter, roll your own cigarettes, non-smoke tobacco like snuff and
so on, the contraband market, smuggled cigarettes. I kept the
grouping together as much as possible. I found that between 1990
and 1991, overall consumption went down in Canada by 6 per cent.
It then dropped almost half a per cent. The next year it dropped
3.49 per cent. This verifies what was in the other figures, that there
was a downhill trend. However, in 1994 consumption went up 9.2
per cent.
(1140)
These are very new statistics available through access to
information. The results show what happened the first year after
advertising of tobacco products was re-legalized.
After the Tobacco Product Control Act, which affected the
legality of advertising, was struck down in 1996, advertising could
resume and the results were powerful. Brand switching did not
significantly take place during that year when advertising was
re-allowed.
It is fascinating to look at what happened in the high tax
provinces and the low tax provinces. When the tax rollback took
place some provinces did not lower their taxes. In those provinces
where taxes stayed high, the increase in smoking in 1996 was 1.72
per cent. In the low tax provinces it was 2.32 per cent. That
demonstrates to me a price sensitivity in tobacco consumption,
especially for youth.
Overall per capita consumption in Canada went up 2.32 per cent
during the year when advertising was allowed. Those figures say to
me that advertising sponsorship has an effect on youth.
Another tidbit of information that is not commonly known is that
chewing tobacco was on its way out. Chewing tobacco was very
popular around the turn of the century. We have all seen the
pictures of the cowboy and the spittoon. Chewing tobacco is
another form of nicotine consumption. There were only two groups
who continued to use chewing tobacco in North America: rodeo
cowboys and baseball players.
The consumption of chewing tobacco can be very clearly
graphed and then an advertising program took place. We hear that
the main factor in tobacco consumption is peer related. There was
no peer relationship with smokeless tobacco. An advertising
program was undertaken by one of the young, new chewing
tobacco companies. It is fascinating to see what has happened. I
will not mention the name. I do not want to give these companies
an advertising presence in the House, but I have watched the name
of chewing tobacco appear on race cars. I have watched chewing
tobacco advertisements occur at drag races. I have watched
chewing tobacco appear at rodeos.
Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that chewing tobacco consumption
has gone up? It is much more prevalent today than it was. That says
to me that an advertising campaign completely independent of any
peer group pressure can change human behaviour.
I consequently said that my responsibility on this bill was to be
non-partisan since I actually started out believing that this
approach was nonsense, that there was no way to change human
behaviour, that government intervention in this area was
worthless. Having changed my mind, I went to my colleagues and
said:
8707
``I believe this bill will have an effect on youth''. As a group we
decided to do whatever we could do to make sure no roadblocks
were put in the way of the bill.
Why did we decide to expedite it? I found that Jake Epp, who
was mentioned before, took 13 months, plus or minus, to get his
bill through the House of Commons. Because 10,000 kids a month
take up smoking, and if it took 13 months to get the bill through the
House, I felt it would be unconscionable. How did we decide to
expedite it? We made sure there were no procedural wrangles that
could lengthen the time interval that this bill would stay in the
House.
Consequently, when I made my speech at second reading I asked
for the question to be now put. What happened was fascinating.
There was confusion in the House. All that needed to happen was
for a member to stand and say debate and the debate would have
gone on, but there would be no chance of procedural wrangling. It
was interesting that the debate collapsed. My colleagues were
ticked off at me because they said they did not get a chance to
speak. I had members opposite speak to me.
(1145)
I want Canadians to know there was not a Liberal on the other
side of the House who had a clue what I was going to do. Not a
member of the Bloc had a clue what I was going to do. I simply
decided to prevent procedural wrangling. It was very effective,
effective beyond my wildest dreams.
On the issue of sponsorship and job losses, my colleagues in the
Bloc feel as strongly about this issue as I do. I have an interest in
race cars and racing. I have raced on the same track on the same
day as Jacques Villeneuve's father, Gilles Villeneuve. I still own a
race car and I still race although my political job has messed it up
quite royally.
I am fearful of anything that threatens the Grand Prix de
Montréal. I very carefully looked at what has happened with
tobacco sponsorship in other countries, with a view toward
protecting my hobby, my interest, my avocation and the value of
my race car.
Mr. Volpe: It was pretty well self-interest.
Mr. Hill (Macleod): It was self-interest for sure.
France sought to ban all tobacco advertising effective in 1993.
There was a huge outcry from sponsorship groups. FISA, the group
that governs motor sport throughout the world, organizers of the
Grand Prix circuit, announced the French Grand Prix of 1993
would be withdrawn.
The French Grand Prix is the longest running grand prix in
history. To those people in France the grand prix is extremely
important. The threat occurred before the law was passed in 1993.
The sponsorship ban in France went through. The 1993 French
Grand Prix was held. The 1994 French Grand Prix was held. The
1995 French Grand Prix was held. The 1996 French Grand Prix was
held. The 1997 French Grand Prix will be held devoid of tobacco
sponsorship.
Exactly the same argument was made about jobs for advertisers
and the advertising industry, that there would be a huge withdrawal
of funds to the advertising industry and jobs would be lost. My
colleague in the Bloc is concerned and rightfully so for jobs in the
advertising industry. I have testimony saying that 22 per cent of the
labour force working directly in the outdoor advertising industry
would be lost. It is a big deal.
The president of the Outdoor Advertising Association of Canada
wrote to a marketing magazine. Tobacco advertising had been
banned in Canada and he wrote:
The ad ban under the Tobacco Products Control Act was arguably one of the best
things to ever happen to our industry. It drove our members to develop other
advertising categories so that today packaged goods, not tobacco, are our largest
spending group. The loss of tobacco revenues has been completely recouped and
then some.
We are being given a bill of goods from self-interest groups. Let
me refer to the issue of the shopkeeper bearing all the onus. When a
youngster goes into a shop to buy cigarettes and is sold cigarettes
the shopkeeper is fined. I have listened to the shopkeepers at home.
They are quite concerned that their businesses will be wrecked and
that there will be cigarette inspectors throughout the country.
(1150)
I tried hard to amend the bill to put some onus of responsibility
on the youth who broke the law. I wanted a small fine for the
15-year old who went into the shop to buy cigarettes. It would be a
slap on the wrist: ``Don't do that. It is illegal''. That was my one
attempt to amend the bill. I was not looking for procedural
wrangling. I tried to make that little attempt but it was
unsuccessful.
Another big issue for my party and me was the regulations which
put meat on the bones of the act. Over and over again I have
lobbied for the regulations to be scrutinized by the whatever
committee would be appropriate, which in this case was the health
committee. I put those proposals, ideas and thoughts forward. I had
hopes the minister would hear me out on the issue and the
regulations would be scrutinized.
As it turned out, a Liberal member put forward such an
amendment which through design or mess up was passed. I was
told the scrutiny of regulations was against parliamentary tradition.
This is an historic occasion. It will not be noticed by the press or
by those worried about tobacco. However as a health committee we
8708
will receive the regulations, may do a study of them and make
changes. I circle the word may. I sincerely hope the member who
put forward the amendment gets huge credit for having done so.
The scrutiny of regulations will take place by elected
representatives and not just by order in council. That little one is
great for me; it is my smile on the tobacco bill.
I must say a few words to my smoking friends, those people
whom I tried all my life in my capacity as a physician to convince
not to smoke. I hope they can stop. I have expressed words of
advice. I know how tough it is. To that end I have looked at the
cancer statistics.
I see the ads for cigarettes which try to convince young women:
``You've come a long way, baby''. I will talk about cancer of
females for now. From 1970 to 1995 colorectal cancer has dropped
somewhat. Ovarian cancer has stayed reasonably level. Stomach
cancer has come down. Cervical cancer has come down. Cancer of
the uterus has come down slightly. Melanoma has stayed static.
However there is one cancer that has taken off like a rocket ship,
cancer of the lung. It has gone from less than 10 per 100,000 to
almost 35 per 100,000. It is the only female cancer that has taken
off.
There is only one reason for this in our female population, in our
young women, in our wives and in our daughters: ``You've come a
long way, baby. You've learned how to smoke''. It is a shame. I
hope this will be very evident to the young women.
(1155 )
The bill will soon go to the other place. I will watch with great
interest certain of the individuals there, three very prominent
senators: Michael Kirby, William Kelly and Roch Bolduc, all of
whom are very intimately involved in the tobacco industry. They
are on the boards of these big companies. I will watch them very
carefully to see whether or not they will vote on these issues. If
ever there has been a conflict of interest on a voting issue, there it
is. I will watch with profound interest to see what happens. Will
they abstain?
Before I came to Parliament I made a little promise to myself
that if I were ever offered compensation for changing my mind on
something I would not do it. That is a nice way of putting what I
would like to say very strongly. I cannot say the word that I would
like to say because it is inappropriate to use it in the House.
One night not so long ago I received a phone call. The person on
the line said: ``Doc, if you change your mind on this bill it will
mean something to you personally in a financial way. If your party
changes its mind on this bill funds will flow''. I am making that
announcement in the House of Commons today. I as a member of
Parliament was offered compensation for changing my mind on
this issue.
I have a lighthearted but not so lighthearted request for the
tobacco companies. They are looking for things to sponsor. They
are looking for areas to put their money. What if they sponsored
funeral parlours? What if they put a little sign on every hearse
saying that it is sponsored by the tobacco company involved?
I considered the approach taken on the bill. I thought it was the
wrong way to go. I am still not sure the bill is perfect. I find flaws
and holes in it.
When I went to Parliament the people at home said that I should
try to be as non-partisan as I could and try to support legislative
measures that would make a difference. For the 10,000 children per
month who are taking up tobacco, half of whom will die
prematurely, I say that the bill is imperfect but it is better than a
vacuum.
I will reflect back on the first patient I had as a medical student.
The fellow was a veteran. He was my very first assignment. I was a
green, untrained medical student in the Mewburn pavilion at the
University of Alberta. He had emphysema. He had smoked all of
his life. He was dying; he was literally at the end of his life. He was
on oxygen. I went to visit him day after day after day. I was getting
to know what it was like to deal with a patient, to listen to
somebody in distress and to watch him slowly slip away.
His last words to me were: ``Doc, don't let the young kids
smoke''. He did not last much longer. I will never forget him. I will
never forget his advice to me. In my judgment this legislation will
help in the quest not to let the young kids smoke. Let me close by
saying with memory of my first patient: ``Don't let young kids
smoke''.
[Translation]
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is a most important debate. We are debating a social
issue: our society's values. What will be the future of our young
people? Should we try to reduce the number of smokers and, if
possible, eliminate smoking completely? On our side of the House,
we think so.
(1200)
I strongly support Bill C-71, even more so because I had the
honour to introduce, in the Quebec National Assembly, the first
legislation in Canada protecting non-smokers, Bill 84. I have heard
the opponents of this bill.
Bloc members claim that it is almost as an attack against
Quebec, against freedom of expression, and even that Montreal's
economic future is in jeopardy. True to form, members of the PQ
and the BQ said that it was Quebec against the rest of Canada, the
rest of Canada against Quebec. Those who vote for the bill are
against Quebec and against Montreal's economic future.
8709
The media opposed to the bill even called those who support Bill
C-71 ayatollahs, and now the Bloc's big guns have adopted the
term. There are goodies and baddies, and yet, I wonder if this is
such a clear cut issue in Quebec.
Let me name just a few of the hundreds of organizations that
support Bill C-71, as I would not have the time to name them all:
the Association des cardiologues du Québec, the Association des
médecins de langue française du Canada, the City of Montreal's
public health branch, all the hospitals in the Montreal region and
across the province, all the CLSCs, l'Association des étudiants du
Département d'éducation physique de l'Université Laval-these
people definitely have an interest in sports-the Association
régionale du sport étudiant de l'Abitibi-Témiscamingue, the
Association régionale du sport étudiant du
Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, the Association régionale du sport
étudiant Laurentides-Lanaudière, the Gouffre school board, in
school board, the Fédération québécoise du sport étudiant, the
Maison des jeunes d'Amos Inc., the Maison des jeunes de
Desbiens, l'Illusion, the Maison des jeunes de Saint-Jovite, the
Maison des jeunes du Bas-Saguenay, the municipality of
Lotbinière, the municipality of Saint-Bruno-de-Kamouraska, the
municipality of Saint-Simon-de-Rimouski, the regional county
municipality of Rivière-du-Loup, the City of Deux-Montagnes, the
City of Rimouski, the City of Roberval, the City of Saint-Félicien,
and hundreds of other cities, CLSCs, sports organizations, etc. Are
these people ayatollahs of tobacco?
Are the countries that are taking similar measures, and those that
have already done so, ayatollahs of tobacco? France, Germany, the
United Kingdom, Belgium, Australia, Norway, Sweden, Iceland,
Finland and, in 1998, the United States with much stricter
legislation than the bill before us, are these countries also
ayatollahs of tobacco? Do they not understand?
On December 10, 1992, the Fédération internationale du sport
automobile (FISA) stated unequivocally that the French Grand Prix
was over, that it was going to be cancelled. Four years later, the
French Grand Prix is still going strong and, in 1997, Jacques
Villeneuve will definitely try to win it. The Grand Prix will still be
there in 1998-99, in the year 2000 and well beyond that.
In 1988, officials of the Canadian open golf championship said
that if Du Maurier withdrew its support, it would be the end of that
event. Yet, this golf championship will be held in Montreal this
year, with the support of Bell Canada. The Virginia Slims women's
tennis tournament is still going strong, even though Virginia Slims
was replaced by Corel. At one time, the Australian world tennis
tournament was sponsored by Marlboro; now, it is sponsored by
Ford.
It has been said that Bill C-71 would deal a deadly blow to
Montreal. It has been said that the economic future of Montreal
will be brought down by Bill C-71. But when the big guns in the
Bloc Quebecois' who are condemning Bill C-71 because of its
economic impact on Montreal are told that political instability in
Quebec is weakening and hitting Quebec hard, they tell us that this
is a figment of our imagination. We have referendum after
referendum. We just had a referendum at a cost of several millions
of dollars that divided Quebecers and caused political instability,
and what is the Quebec government doing to reshape the economic
future of Montreal? They are talking about a third referendum,
maybe for next year or the year after.
(1205)
The mayor of Montreal, who should know something about it,
said himself that political instability is hitting Montreal hard, that
we cannot go on like this with our never ending quarrels from
referendums to language battles. That was the mayor saying that,
and he should be in a position to know about it.
We were also told that there is no link between advertising and
young people starting up smoking. Yet, there are studies about that.
I will quote only a few of them for lack of time, but I could send our
colleagues from the Bloc seven boxes full of studies, hundreds of
them, showing a link between the two. I will quote only a few. The
team of Pollay, Siddars, Siegel, Haddix, Merritt, Giovino and
Ericksen studied this issue over a 14-year period, from 1979 to
1993. These people are experts in marketing, social sciences,
health sciences, etc. They concluded, and I quote:
[English]
Because brand shares of advertising voice are significantly related to
subsequently realized market shares, cigarette advertising appears to influence the
smoking behaviour of adolescents. Notably, the effect is substantially larger amongst
adolescents than among adults by a factor of about three. The battle of the brands for
market share is waged largely among the young, for it is a brand's success among the
young that leads to greater brand sales and profit in the long term.
[
Translation]
A 1996 U.S. study by Evans, Farkas, Gilpin, Berry and Pierce
comes to the same conclusion. These studies have extensive
references.
[English]
``Our results support the hypothesis that tobacco marketing may
be a stronger current influence in encouraging adolescents to
initiate the smoking uptake process than demographic
characteristics, than perceived school performance or exposure to
other smokers in a peer or family network. The cumulative
evidence supports the need for effective strategies to prevent
adolescents from starting to smoke''.
[Translation]
In his book entitled Smoke & Mirrors: the Canadian Tobacco
War, Rod Cunningham quotes an Imperial Tobacco chairman, who
said: ``If we keep at it long enough, we can get tremendous benefits
by sending to the public a longer-lasting message''. He also quotes
a vice-president of marketing at Imperial, who thinks that even the
8710
less privileged smokers can choose a brand because it conjures up a
comfortable lifestyle.
Also mentioned is a project carried out by a marketing research
company from Ontario in 1977 on behalf of Imperial Tobacco. It
was called ``Project 16 years old''. The report stated and I quote:
``The purpose of this project was to learn as much as we can about
smoking uptake, about how high school students feel when they
start smoking and what they forecast will be their future tobacco
consumption''.
In another of its documents entitled ``Media Plans 80'', Imperial
Tobacco describes the groups it is targeting in 1980 for its various
brands. The target groups are defined according to demographic
characteristics such as age, sex and education. Some of the ads
were aimed at boys and girls from 12 to 17 years of age.
The ``National Media Plan 81'' Imperial Tobacco prepared the
following year contained a similar market analysis strategy for
comparable target groups. For some brands, the 12 to 17-year old
smokers still represented the major target group. They were given
the highest weighting used.
(1210)
In La Presse of March 5, 1997, Normand Turgeon, a marketing
professor at the École des hautes études commerciales who did a
study showing that tobacco companies sponsor events because it
boosts their sales, is quoted as saying: ``These results contradict
what manufacturers have been saying. What they keep telling you
is not the truth''. In La Presse of March 5, 1997, Vincent Fischer, a
champion of sponsorship in Quebec, said: ``If tobacco companies
invest $60 million in sponsorships, it is not because they want to be
nice, but because it pays''.
We have been told that Montreal would be losing the Canadian
Grand Prix. I wonder if Bloc members are not a bit worried that, if
their fondest dream ever came true and Quebec became a sovereign
country overnight, Montreal would lose the Canadian Grand Prix.
Would the Australian Grand Prix still be held in Australia if it
became the Victoria Grand Prix overnight? I doubt it very much.
But they do not worry too much about that.
In the March 4, 1997 edition of the Journal de Montréal, Jacques
Duval, a former president of the Montreal Grand Prix exposed the
odious blackmail that is going on, saying: ``One does not have to be
a rocket scientist to realize that what is going on is a rather clumsy
conspiracy by people who are primarily concerned about their own
interests''.
The Canadian Grand Prix will survive if it deserves to survive,
and I think it will, because it does. We are also being told that arts
and artists in Quebec will be affected by the loss of sponsorships. It
is as if the whole artistic community in Quebec were opposed to
Bill C-71. However, the Artistes pour les commandites sans tabac
represent 300 Quebec artists such as Claude Meunier, Serge
Thériault, Marc Favreau, Gilles Pelletier, Plume Latraverse, Édith
Butler, and talk show hosts Gregory Charles and Marc-André
Coallier. One of their spokespersons said: ``These sponsorships sell
cigarettes. One cannot try to enrich people's life while contributing
to the shortening of their existence. We cannot keep silent while the
tobacco industry uses the addictions it creates to stop a piece of
legislation as crucial as this one in the area of health''.
We have to know exactly how much the tobacco companies
contribute to Quebec arts: at the National Theatre School of Canada
in Montreal, 1 per cent of total revenues; at Les Grands Ballets
Canadiens in Montreal, 0.4 per cent; at Ballet Jazz de Montréal, 2
per cent; at the Centre du Théâtre d'aujourd'hui in Montreal, 1 per
cent; at Montreal's Orchestre de chambre I Musici, 0.3 per cent; at
Montreal's Place des Arts, 0.1 per cent; at the Montreal Symphony
Orchestra, 0.3 per cent; at the Montreal Opera, 0.3 per cent.
Except in one case, no percentage is higher than 3 per cent.
It is said that in Quebec all movements, political or otherwise,
are against Bill C-71. And yet, here is what Minister Rochon said in
the November 27, 1996 edition of La Presse: ``We will go as far as
we can. Sponsorship is subliminal advertising. It is a very strong
means to promote consumption of a product, especially among
young people. Some events have become as addicted to tobacco as
the smokers themselves''.
In La Presse of November 11, 1996, Rémy Trudel, the minister
responsible for sports and recreation, expressed his concerns about
the close links between tobacco manufacturers and a sports facility:
``There are priority values a government should not give up''.
In Le Soleil of November 28, 1996, Louise Beaudoin said: ``I
agree that Quebecers' health must come first''.
Allow me to quote clause 22 of Minister Rochon's tobacco bill.
This bill, now in draft form, is the fifth version to be discussed by
the Government of Quebec, and is expected to be introduced in
June 1997.
(1215)
Clause 22 of the bill says: ``Any direct or indirect funding of
sporting, cultural or social events or facilities whose purpose is to
promote tobacco in any way is prohibited''.
To those who are opposed to this bill, particularly my colleagues
from the Bloc, I ask this: what would they have said if Minister
Rochon had introduced a bill before the federal minister did?
Would they have condemned Minister Rochon publicly? I am
talking about a bill supported by the Parti Quebecois government
itself, a bill that exists, a bill whose clause 22 I read, a bill I have a
complete copy of here, a bill that goes much further than Bill C-71.
8711
What would they have said then? What would they have said if the
bill at issue came from the Quebec government?
An hon. member: I will tell you.
Mr. Lincoln: You see, Madam Speaker. They cannot accept any
debate.
We listened to their colleague a few minutes ago. We did not
attack him, but they cannot accept any debate. They cannot accept
it because, according to them, something is either black or white.
You are either for or against it. There is nothing in between. They
cannot accept another view.
This is why, whenever we speak, they feel the urge to interrupt
us. Well, let them. What I would like is to see them ask Mr. Rochon
where he stands, why a pequiste minister at their headquarters in
Quebec has come out with a bill that goes much further than the
federal bill and said they wanted to go further.
What would they have said then? Would they have attacked the
federal government? Would they have called Mr. Rochon an
ayatollah? Would they have called Mr. Trudel an ayatollah? Would
they have called Ms. Beaudoin an ayatollah? Of course not. They
turned it into politics, petty politics at that.
Their line now is that it is the rest of Canada against Quebec. It is
Mr. Dingwall, the health minister, against all of Quebec. It is
everyone against Montreal. But this is simply not true.
This impressive list of 560 organizations-
An hon. member: Céline Hervieux-Payette is on our side.
Mr. Lincoln: Madam Speaker, he is interrupting again to tell
me: ``Céline Hervieux-Payette''. You see the difference between us
and the Bloc Quebecois. We are not a monolithic block; we
Liberals can think for ourselves. Some of us are in favour of the
bill, and some have reservations. Perhaps the senator has
reservations. That is her business, that is her fundamental right.
We are not like them, caught in a stranglehold, unable to move,
unable to accept that anything could depart even slightly from their
monolithic view of things. What distinguishes the Liberal way of
thinking is that individuals think for themselves, arrive at their own
decisions. If anyone in our party wishes to say otherwise, let him or
her do so. That is what democracy is all about. Our hands are not
tied. We are human beings first and foremost.
I for one, as a Liberal living in Quebec, am 100 per cent in
favour of Bill C-71. When we passed Bill 84 in the National
Assembly, smoking was allowed in hospitals, clinics, restaurants,
everywhere in Quebec. Today, progress has been made. Things are
certainly not perfect, but smoking is far less prevalent or
practically non-existent in hospitals and clinics. Even in
restaurants, there are areas set aside.
The legislation Mr. Rochon is proposing, and that I would dearly
love to see passed, will mean the end of smoking in restaurants and
public places. It is smoking we are battling. We are battling for a
future concept, a social value. I therefore strongly support Bill
C-71.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Madam Speaker, my
Liberal colleague asked a number of questions of the Bloc
Quebecois and I had trouble refraining from giving him the
answers since he was so insistent about it.
(1220)
First of all, I would like to tell all my Liberal colleagues that the
Bloc Quebecois agrees with the principle of Bill C-71. It agrees
with the content of the bill, barring a few exceptions. However,
when a bill includes the use of means that should not be used
because the end never justifies the means, it is our duty as the
official opposition to point out those aspects of the bill.
You will recall that, unfortunately, debate was cut short at second
reading. We probably could have drawn these aspects of the bill to
the attention of Liberal members and of all Canadians if that debate
had taken place. But it did not, and we are forced to raise these
issues now.
So, the first major irritant is the reverse onus, which means that
people will be considered guilty until they can prove their
innocence. This is totally new in our justice system, and that is why
it is a major irritant. As the official opposition, the Bloc Quebecois
cannot accept such a change of rules in our justice system.
The second irritant concerns sponsorships. It may be desirable
that tobacco companies stop sponsoring various events some day,
but it is not something that can be done overnight. That is the
problem. The minister is telling us that if young people do not see
any tobacco advertising at sporting and cultural events, they will
not start smoking. I admit that it may influence them a little, but it
is not their main motivation.
When I was young, many people smoked and I, myself, started
to smoke. Thank God, I was able to quit later on. However, there
were no sponsorships on television. This was at the beginning of
television. We had black and white screens only, and there were
just a few programs. But did we ever smoke. Therefore, there must
be other factors that lead young people to smoke.
In fact, if the health minister is so convinced that sponsorships
are one of the important factors that lead young people to start
smoking, why then does he not provide a transition period in order
to help sponsored events to find other sponsors? How can we
8712
believe a minister who is not ready to invest a single penny to
support his principles?
This is not grandstanding, we are only looking at the facts as
they are. Without a transition period, the direct losses will amount
to $60 million. As for indirect losses, they will amount to $200
million for the Montreal area, an area where there are more poor
people than in all the maritimes. We are not grandstanding, we are
looking at the facts. If the losses are that high, it will cause
unemployment. Unemployment means poor families. Poor
families mean poor children, malnutrition, a high dropout rate,
health problems.
Even worse, studies show that poor families smoke more. By
refusing to provide a transition period, the minister will endanger
the health of those same young people he claims he wants to
protect. This really is a measure the minister did not foresee the
possible perverse effects of.
In fact, we must realize that the sponsored events proposed some
interesting compromises to the minister but it seems that he prefers
going to court, because this is sure to happen. Sponsored events and
sponsors will go ahead and force the minister to go all the way to
the Supreme Court and once again, in five years or more, the
problem will still be with us.
I want to tell my Liberal colleague that in the health committee I
myself proposed active measures aimed at the young, for example,
an awareness campaign where stars popular with young people
would tell them that they do not smoke to preserve their health.
(1225)
Last November, I had the opportunity to discuss the bill with Mr.
Rochon and I expressed my concerns. You will know that Mr.
Rochon's bill has not moved a bit since then. His bill will be
reviewed by cabinet because good intents are one thing, but
negative impacts are another and they must also be taken into
consideration. That is one of our main points. We want the bill to
have maximum efficiency and we want full protection for the
health of Canadians and Quebecers.
However, the clauses on sponsorship will have the effect of
replacing a problem with another which might be even worse.
I have a twofold question for my colleague. First, could it be that
the minister is more stubborn than convinced? Is the Minister of
Health sick? Why does he not invest the money in his own budget
to finance a transition period? Finally, and I would really
appreciate an answer from my colleague, is the minister not afraid
that the right he is assuming to decide what can or cannot be seen
on television might be declared unconstitutional? Other countries
tried to decide for their citizens what could and what could not be
seen and we know what happened to them. I ask the member across
the way if, out of sheer stubbornness, the minister is not losing
sight of what is best for the health of Canadians and Quebecers?
Mr. Lincoln: Madam Speaker, first of all, if the minister is
really losing sight of the health objectives of Canadians, then why
is he getting support from all health organizations across Canada,
including Quebec? Hospitals, Local Community Service Centres,
doctors, in fact everyone supports the minister. If he is against
health, why would all these groups give him their unqualified
support?
They say there was no debate on this issue. This is an issue that
has been discussed for years. For years we have been debating this
question. Every time a bill is introduced. In fact the Conservative
government introduced one, and there was endless debate on the
subject. There is a debate in our society between the pro-tobacco
groups and the anti-tobacco groups. This has been going on for
years. All the facts are known.
I told the hon. member for the Bloc Quebecois that if he wanted
to go and see them, I would show him seven boxes full of
documents that prove there is a connection between tobacco
sponsorships and smoking, especially among young people. There
are studies, and I quoted two of them, but there are hundreds more
that prove this fact.
And if it were not true, why would France, Germany, the United
Kingdom, the United States, the Scandinavian countries, and so
forth, have done the same thing we are doing? Even if Minister
Rochon's bill is being revised in cabinet, the fact is that he and the
Quebec government said quite clearly they wanted to go further.
They talk about unemployment in Montreal, where I come from.
Montreal is in bad shape today. But I think there is something
wrong when they talk about the connection between sponsorship
and unemployment and never mention the connection between
political instability and unemployment in Montreal. Why is Zellers
leaving? Why did Canadian Pacific leave? Why are we losing
5,000 Quebecers more per quarter than we get, including
immigrants? Why is this happening?
They do not want to face the facts. They do not want to face the
consequences of this endless debate that has been going for years.
They had the first referendum, but that was not enough. They had a
second one, it was still not enough. So they will have a third one.
Even the hon. member for St. Hubert, who is running for the
leadership of the Bloc Quebecois, said the other day: ``After a third
referendum, no more, because people are fed up''. She herself
admitted this had to stop someday in order to provide some
political stability. That is what we need.
(1230)
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ):
Madam Speaker, I will respond immediately to the hon. member
for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis who said my colleague had
mentioned Mrs. Céline Hervieux-Payette.
8713
I believe it would be a good idea to start off with two little
paragraphs the hon. member is, no doubt, not aware of. I will also
remind him that this lady is the chief organizer for the next
elections, or one of those who will be helping him get elected in
his riding. I trust she will be on the platform with him to defend
this stand.
What she said is this: ``In my opinion, restricting advertising and
sponsorships has a minimal role to play in overcoming this
scourge. If sporting and cultural activities in Quebec are earmarked
as the testing grounds for a policy that will not have the desired
effects, I say no way. Give me your support to stop Montreal from
being the major victim of this policy, when it is already nearly
crushed by unemployment''.
The person speaking here is not a separatist but a good Liberal,
one rewarded by the government across the way with an
appointment to the other place, the other House. Yet she does not
support the colleague we have just heard in any way. Do you know
why there is a difference between what the Liberals on the other
side here and the Liberals in the other place have to say? It is
because in the other House they were not elected, while here the
Liberals across the way are, and they want to look good on the
campaign trail. They want to look like the good guys in a matter as
vital as health.
What did the Liberals do in the area of health in 1993? Nothing,
or next to it. I will give you only a few examples, because my time
is limited. And I will take this opportunity, Madam Speaker, to tell
you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Joliette.
The Department of Health did major studies on raw milk cheese.
In the end it was shown beyond a doubt that the whole thing was
totally absurd, and the Liberals backed off.
There was the national forum on health where the government
spent $18 million, and yet health is a provincial jurisdiction. There
was no reason for this forum. It was so unpopular that the provinces
did not even take part in it, although it is under their jurisdiction.
Then there was the Minister of Health, who, in the first years,
went to war. She went to war against tobacco with her famous plain
cigarette packaging. The packages were beige and were supposed
to stop young people from smoking.
An hon. member: They were drab like the minister.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Indeed, they were just as drab as the minister
and that is why it was stopped at that point. It was said that it did
not work.
Now, on the eve of elections, the Minister of Justice realized that
voters will be wondering what the Liberals have done in the area of
health. They needed a noble cause. They found it among the young
people, in the health of the young. They latched on to the idea that
they would protect the health of young people and intervene in the
issue of smoking.
If the government really had the courage of its convictions, it
would prohibit what it says is dangerous. Tobacco seems to be
dangerous, it must be prohibited. I heard the health minister and the
parliamentary secretary telling us that the effects of tobacco use,
particularly among young people, cost our society several billions
of dollars. He estimates at $3.5 billion health care costs directly
related to smoking.
But I did not hear the same health minister or the same
parliamentary secretary telling me and the House that indeed it
costs us $3.5 billion, but that the federal and provincial levels of
government make at least $5 billion in various taxes on cigarettes
and tobacco products. Sure it is no laughing matter when you
consider people suffering from lung cancer or other diseases
related to tobacco abuse, but we live in a free country. Why is the
government insisting on wiping out this industry?
(1235)
If it had raised the real issues regarding tobacco use, we would
not have ended up with this hypocritical piece of legislation which
is before the House today. Moreover we have been gagged at
second reading of this important bill. It was read very quickly. We
were gagged in committee as we were reviewing the bill clause by
clause. Again today at report stage and at third reading, the
government is applying closure. We will not be able to discuss the
bill at leisure. Why? Because the Liberals opposite do not want to
discuss it.
Earlier, the member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis said there are
seven boxes of documents proving there is a direct link between
smoking and diseases. I can tell you that on the other side, there are
also seven boxes of documents to prove the effect is not as
immediate as they claim. There are also studies that show that just
because young people go to the Du Maurier open does not mean
that, when they go home, they want to go out and buy a package of
cigarettes.
As the Leader of the Opposition said, the young person who
watches a game of tennis and sees ``Du Maurier'' at the back
during the whole game is far more interested in getting a new
tennis racket when he comes home than a package of cigarettes.
There is no immediate effect. No studies have been able to prove
this.
Furthermore, quite frankly, we are not 100 per cent against Bill
C-71, the anti-tobacco bill. We support most of the bill, and we said
so to hon. members opposite. We even proposed as many as 32
amendments to improve the bill and provide more active ways of
educating young people, for instance, if we really want to protect
them. But no, the government ignored our comments and continues
to do so because it is the sole repository of the truth. When you gag
the opposition, it is because you do not want to listen to the
8714
opposition. You do not want to listen to them because you think you
are right. That is the problem.
That is why when I listen to a speech like the one made this
morning by the Quebec member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis, I
can hardly take it seriously. It is really too bad. He is here to defend
the interests of Quebec, but for 20 minutes he defended the
interests of Ottawa, not like us, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois, who have the interests of Quebec at heart.
For instance, the part of bill that we cannot accept, that no one in
Quebec can accept, is the part that concerns sponsorships. If this
bill is passed, we will not be able to have a number of sports and
cultural events which the people of Montreal and people from other
parts of Quebec are accustomed to having.
I will name a few that are at risk because the government
opposite will not listen to reason: the jazz festival, the Benson &
Hedges fireworks, the Just for Laughs festival, the summer festival
in Quebec City, the Montreal Grand Prix, the Trois-Rivières Grand
Prix, plus the whole domino effect of banning sponsorships. The
loss in Montreal alone will be $240 million plus more than 2,000
jobs. This is not counting the domino effect on the regions.
In Berthier-Montcalm we have the Gilles Villeneuve museum.
If there is no Grand Prix in Montreal, you can bet that the 10 or 15
per cent who visit the museum during the Grand Prix will no longer
come. These are people from Europe, Japan and United States.
These tourists bring money into Quebec. If there is no Montreal
Grand Prix, no Trois-Rivières Grand Prix, they will never come to
Berthierville to visit the museum. They will not make a special trip
from Japan to come and visit the Gilles Villeneuve museum.
You must understand this, Madam Speaker. Try to make them
understand. In concluding, if it is so important to the government
opposite, it should make this part of its election platform and let the
Secretary of State for the Federal Office of Regional Development
in Quebec go on the hustings in Quebec to sell Bill C-71, and the
people will decide whether or not they want this bill. In Quebec, the
answer will be no, we do not.
(1240)
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I think you know the respect I have for all my colleagues in the
House and of course for a great many of the official opposition
members.
However I find ironic and contradictory-
An hon. member: Surprising.
Mr. Duhamel: ``Surprising'' does not go far enough. Their
attitude, the reaction they have of saying that the member for
Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis was not looking out for Quebec or for
Quebecers, what utter nonsense.
Mr. Lebel: The truth hurts.
Mr. Duhamel: It is not the truth, it is complete nonsense.
The last member who spoke, the one before last, is an hon.
member with a reputation that far surpasses that of most members
of the Bloc Quebecois.
Mr. Godin: It has been a long time since you yourself were in
Montreal.
Mr. Duhamel: They know it. He is a member known for his
honesty. I find it appalling that they would use this opportunity to
try to insult him, to embarrass such a person.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I would like a
little more respect to be shown members of this House.
Mr. Duhamel: We all know that any credible research shows a
link between tobacco and health. We have just heard the member
try to tell us that other researchers say the opposite, but how many
Canadians buy this?
Honestly, use arguments that make sense. There are almost 600
groups in Quebec, credible people, who support this bill, 600
groups. A majority of Canadians, including Quebecers, support this
bill. And they are trying to make people think otherwise. Why? In
order to try to rationalize their position, to try to scare people.
They said it would mean the end of all sorts of events.
Mr. Lebel: It would.
Mr. Duhamel: Why? Because their position is unfounded. They
are trying to scare people, to get them worked up. That is their only
strategy. Obviously, when they have nothing to say, they attack,
they scare people. Why not? That is the only tactic they have left.
It is unfortunate. It is not true to say we are playing politics with
this bill. We are here to try to protect young Canadians, including
Quebecers.
That is what we should be trying to do together, rather than
trying to use the opportunity to engage in petty politics. That is
what they are up to and I would like to know why. Why are they
defending smoking, which leads to poor health? I would like to
know how they can defend such a position.
It is unbelievable.
Mr. Tremblay (Rosemont): What about the museum in
Berthierville?
Mr. Bellehumeur: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to reply to the
hon. member for St. Boniface. I am defending the economic spinoff
aspect, one of the reasons being that we agree with the health
aspect of it, the question of protecting our young people, the
requirement about being over 18. This is part of the 80 per cent of
the bill we agree with.
8715
The part that bothers Quebec-and the reason I referred to the
fact that the hon. member comes from Quebec and is not
defending Quebecers-is that not defending Quebecers in such a
matter means that $30 million will be lost in sponsorships, $240
million in Montreal alone in economic spinoffs of all kinds. That
means, for Montreal alone, a minimum of 2,200 jobs lost.
(1245)
Let him come and tell those 2,000 people who are unemployed
after Bill C-71 is passed at third reading, that it is their fault, the
Liberals' fault, that the Montreal tourist industry has been dealt a
death blow, that $240 million annually in economic spinoffs of all
types is being lost, that $30 million in sponsorships is being lost.
Let him come and tell people that during the election campaign.
I invite you to come and say that in my riding. The Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Health, who is in the House, can also
come and tell people that. Let him explain to the Gilles Villeneuve
museum what it is going to lose.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Madam Speaker, I had begun,
in my earlier speech, to explain that the bill before us is
unreasonable, because it mixes very different values. Sponsorship
does not mean advertising. The two things are very different.
The fact that a company's name appears on a car is not going to
cause us to buy more of the company's product. If the company
advertised the merits of its product, I would agree we should
prevent this sort of advertising, which would encourage people to
use a product more. But this is not what sponsorship is about, not at
all.
The aim of sponsorship is simply for a company to present an
event or let the public know it is presenting one. It is to show that
the company shares the concerns, social life, daily life, recreational
activities and culture of the people. If it also promoted its product,
that would be advertising. Just because we see an image, we do not
necessarily try to imitate it.
We have seen certain political figures in the federal government
for the past 30 years, and we have not turned into Liberals. By
seeing them, we were not tempted to do as they do. Once we get to
know them, we no longer wanted to imitate them. That is the
difference.
We are surrounded daily by sources of pollution. Statistics
indicate that 60 per cent of the population is overweight. However,
advertising and sponsorship by chocolate products has not been
prohibited. Chips, peanuts and animal fat are all still permissible.
The doctor treating my weight problem became as fat as I was in
a year. Should he have treated me by phone? It was not by treating
me in his office that he put on weight. And yet, if anyone had the
motivation it was he. He knew the causes and did not heed them.
He avoided them.
That is why I say we do things through education. On the news
this morning, they were saying that, for the past 10 years, women
have suffered from lung cancer more than men. The number of
women smokers has quadrupled in the past 10 years. Does this
mean that women are greater fans of car racing than men? Is the
sponsoring of a cultural festival by Rothmans or Du Maurier and a
racing event by Players to blame for the fact that the number of
women smokers has increased fourfold?
From what I can see on television, I do not think that such events
are attended by more women than men. Inappropriate associations
are being made. Why is that? Because the federal government,
through its minister, has put its head on the block to please a
powerful lobby: the anti-tobacco lobby. There is nothing wrong
with those who are against tobacco use to fight for their cause and
express their opinions; that is their role. There is nothing wrong
either with the tobacco companies wanting to defend their position;
that is their role.
But when a minister says: ``If this bill does not pass, vote against
the Liberal Party in the next election'', the real purpose of his
legislation is clear: to please the very powerful anti-tobacco lobby
representing thousands of well-meaning people.
(1250)
If it were not for this commitment made by the Minister of
Health, I suspect the government would be more inclined to
compromise and show greater flexibility in the implementation of
this act. The Minister of Health wants to save his head at the
expense of thousands of jobs throughout Quebec, particularly in
Montreal, Quebec City and Trois-Rivières, in the riding of Joliette,
where an important tobacco growing industry generates seasonal
jobs. I would hate to see them have to lay people off.
Try educating and convincing people instead; it is a much more
effective approach. The best example of a successful education
campaign is Operation Nez Rouge, which was designed to fight
alcohol abuse. The whole thing is based on education and it did not
cost the people of Quebec thousands or millions of dollars. It was
initiated in Quebec 10 or 15 years ago by a professor at Laval
University, in Quebec City.
This initiative has now been extended not only to other provinces
across Canada, but also to several countries, where similar
organizations were created. Today, as a result of this campaign, the
number of alcohol-related automobile accidents has been reduced
by nearly 80 or 90 per cent. This is how effective this educational
approach has been, instead of the government interfering with
people's lives through legislation.
Drunk drivers were not condemned, they were educated. Today,
these individuals are proud of what they have learned. They are
8716
proud to play a role in social development and to help reduce the
number of traffic accidents. We did not convince these people by
intruding in their lives, but by teaching them principles.
In addition to being ill-advised, this intrusion is a dangerous
precedent. If, whenever there is abuse of any kind, the government
must legislate to prevent such abuse, eventually no one in Quebec
or in Canada will be able to act of his own free will. Everything will
be regulated.
Discotheques will be closed, because they are too noisy. Indeed,
it is dangerous for young people to listen to loud music because
they could go deaf. The fact is we do not prohibit music in
discotheques. As long as it is played inside, the number of decibels
is not regulated. Then again, maybe we should do something about
it, because it is harmful and it is costly to society if a young person
loses his hearing.
Similarly, we do not prevent people from overdoing it, from
staying up until four or five in the morning. Some young people do
that. Quite often, they roam the streets. Should we legislate, impose
a curfew at one in the morning and tell these kids they must not be
on the street after that time? That is not what we do. We leave it up
to parents to educate their children. And it is through education that
we will succeed.
There are many other examples. Cars pollute the environment,
and not just because there are tobacco company logos displayed on
them. They pollute because they release carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere. This adversely affects the quality of life of all of us.
When I breathe the carbon dioxide released by cars, it is harmful to
my health. Yet, the government did not legislate on that. It does not
prevent cars and buses from being on the road, even though it is
harmful to my health.
Earlier, I mentioned products that cause obesity. Again, the
situation is the same. The companies that make these products were