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
not prohibited from sponsoring social or cultural events. It is
ill-advised to try to regulate such issues. The official opposition is
merely asking the government to amend its legislation so as to
allow the tobacco industry to continue to sponsor events that
provide jobs for thousands of people.
This bill might help save the lives of some people, but it could
also ruin the lives of the thousands of others who will be deprived
of their livelihood. Indeed, it might ruin the lives of some people
because it will make them lose hope. And the same goes for their
children.
(1255)
This is a bad remedy. They are prescribing a remedy without first
looking at the side effects. It is like saying that, because I eat things
that are not good for my health and a cure will not be found for 10
years, my fingers will be cut off. It is not the best solution. It is like
saying that if my fingers are cut off, then I will no longer be able to
eat those bad things.
Instead of cutting off people's fingers, we should try to educate
them, to show them how to eat, how to better protect their health
and their bodies. This is what we mean by educating people. It is
more work and it may be more costly but, in the long term, it is
much more beneficial and much more respectful of people's
freedom. We are asking the government to respect people's
freedom and to recognize this freedom by accepting our proposed
amendments to the bill.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Madam Speaker, I have
paid great attention to the very meaty and lengthy speech by my
hon. colleague from Joliette. It appears that he has not bought into
the notion-nor have I-that a person will live forever if he stops
smoking. People do die of other things.
Unfortunately, I am one of those victims of cigarettes. I am a
heavy smoker, as you know, Madam Speaker. But I am free to do
so. There is one aspect of this bill which I do not feel has been
discussed enough. I may cough a lot, but I would rather die of lung
cancer than to die a captive, a victim and a prisoner. Sad to say, that
would be even worse.
Since the sixties, we have moved into the era of ``one size fits
all'', ready to wear clothes that fit everybody but do not really fit
anybody, and fast food, ``ready to eat''. Maybe that is what lies
behind the problems of obesity my colleague was referring to. Then
there is the ``ready to think'', the ``one thought fits all''. We
certainly cannot ask the questions that bother us any more. Let us
take one simple example: immigration. It is certainly frowned on
for a citizen to ask whether we are letting too many immigrants in,
or not enough, one type rather than another, and so on. One can no
longer ask questions in this area, for it is not politically correct. So
now we have ``one p.c. thought fits all''.
Now, with this bill, we have the ``one sight fits all''. They want
to ban from the public eye certain names, corporate names, honest
names that have earned their visibility. That is one of the aspects of
the bill. They are treating as something shameful the names of
corporations, good corporate citizens nonetheless, who have-or
so I hope-paid their fair share through their taxes and so on. I
therefore approve of the hon. member for Joliette's reference to
doing away with excess, whether eating, smoking or whatever. I
agree with him, but people must be left with the freedom to choose.
I have always been afraid of regimes that feel they are the
possessors of the absolute truth, with a calling from the Creator,
telling us ``From now on, you will no longer smoke''. I ask my hon.
colleague for Joliette if he does not believe instead in the virtue of
educating our young people, for they are the ones we want to
protect.
I would also ask him whether he could address the regulatory
aspect a bit. There are whole chunks of the bill, seven sections of it,
which leave a shameful amount of discretionary power to the
Minister of Health, someone who has not dazzled us with his
judgment so far. To confer upon a man lacking judgment the power
to judge is not such a great idea for a bill. The power needs to be
8717
channelled, the regulations need to be passed by the
governor-in-council. That way, if there is one minister who is not
all there, the others can put him back on track. But that is not the
case.
(1300)
Now, without any judgment-the Liberals showed that they did
not have any in the raw milk cheese issue-the minister will now,
on his own, be able to issue rules, poultices and wooden legs from
one day to the next and have regulations made in response to
pressure from anti smoking groups or others. The worst of it all is
that, if Bill C-25 is passed, the regulations will not even be made
public.
So, I ask my hon. colleague from Joliette to say, for the benefit
of this House and especially for the minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec and also for the
benefit of the Liberals present, whether he does not see a certain
danger in the legislation.
Mr. Laurin: Madam Speaker, I see that I have only 30 seconds
left. That is not much time to answer my colleague's question.
I spoke primarily of sponsorships because this is what affects us
most immediately. We could of course have spoken of the
regulations, but it would have been with great uncertainty, because
we do not know what it is about.
Furthermore, the bill's regulations will not in all likelihood be
presented until after the election, because a Liberal promise is
involved. And we know what to expect from a Liberal election
promise. We had them at the last election, and they were not
honoured. The government does not want to reveal them
immediately. It will wait until after the election, because the cost to
it will be less then.
[English]
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to take part in a debate which
is close to my heart. I have talked about this subject for the last
eight years, probably more than any other member.
I thank my colleagues on this side of the House for their
understanding of my position. It is important and very difficult
sometimes to stand and talk about the tobacco issue. I particularly
thank the minister and his departmental officials for accepting
amendments put forward by tobacco farmers. Specifically I thank
the member for Lambton-Middlesex for her amendment. She
worked very hard on contributing to this piece of legislation.
The number of tobacco farmers have greatly decreased since
1984. Most of the 1,200 remaining are in my riding of
Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant. The economic consequences of the
tobacco industry in my riding are significant. It represents almost
one in three jobs. Within Canada about 60,000 Canadians are
employed by the industry as a whole. The impact in my area is
greater than in any other area. Its rural economy is dramatically
impacted. With that many jobs it means income that people can
spend. Certainly the economic impact is greatest. Of all the tobacco
money generated in my riding, 80 per cent of it actually remains
there.
A study done by Deloitte & Touche entitled ``Economic
Contribution of the Tobacco Industry in the Tobacco Growing
Regions of Ontario'' outlines the importance of the industry to a
small community such as mine. It is important for all hon.
members and all Canadians to understand that.
If we look at the total number of jobs directly involved in
tobacco growing, the producing of the product, there are 16,189
full time and part time jobs. That averages out to 4,578 FTE or full
time equivalent jobs, which accounts for 22 per cent of all
agricultural jobs within my area.
In terms of university students, $13.4 million of labour income
goes to university and high school students in my area each year. It
helps students attend high school and university.
I have some other figures on income. The total income created
by tobacco is $315 million. In Haldimand-Norfolk it is $174
million. In Brant county it is $31 million. In Oxford county it is $44
million. In Elgin it is $66 million.
(1305)
Let us look at its impact on local communities. Communities and
municipalities throughout Ontario are being dramatically cut back
by the Harris Conservatives. Let us also look at the income tobacco
taxes bring to these areas. In Brant county federal taxes amount to
$6 million; provincial taxes, $3 million; and local taxes, $1
million, for a total of $10 million. In Haldimand-Norfolk the
federal taxes amount to $34 million; provincial taxes, $16 million;
and local taxes, $7 million. This industry is generating $56 million
in taxes in the area.
Where do the jobs come from? Locally hired family members
account for the largest portion. These are family farms that help put
children through school. It is estimated that 33.4 per cent or $11.3
million goes to local high school students from these growers.
Almost 20 per cent of the income goes to students.
My argument is simple. As long as Canadians can legally smoke,
which is difficult sometimes given some of the legislation, espe-
8718
cially municipal legislation, they should be able to smoke
Canadian tobacco. The benefits of that will be seen in my
community.
That money does not only go into the pockets of the growers and
the people who work in tobacco growing regions. It goes to
schools. It goes to corner stores. It goes to support local hospitals.
It goes into charitable events within the community.
Within the area of Delhi, Tillsonburg and Aylmer or the entire
tobacco growing area, the level of money given by that community
is a greater percentage than most other regions of Ontario. Tobacco
producers give back what they take out of the soil.
Tobacco growers are normal people. They are good people. They
are Canadians who have contributed to the fabric of the country.
They came from all over the world to Haldimand-Norfolk to
produce tobacco. We have one of the largest German communities
and one of the largest Belgian communities. We have Hungarians
and all kinds of different groups that have come to our area to
produce tobacco.
They were encouraged to get into the industry by the federal
government, by the provincial government and by consumers. My
argument is simple. Let us not throw them to the wolves. We have
taken the time to encourage them to get into the business. Why do
we not take some time if it is the view of governments to move
them out?
The industry can be stabilized. Some of the measures the
government has implemented have helped producers in my area.
People ask why they do not move into another area or why they do
not grow wheat or melons. That has been tried. The soil is not
suitable for other crops. The size of the tobacco farms are on
average 80 acres and today not much money can be made with 80
acres of soil. They just cannot have viable farming operations.
Certainly the area they have tried have already been flooded. There
is no easy answer to help them move.
(1310)
The government has helped. I congratulate it for that. I will
continue to work for more help. Past governments, this
government, consumers and political parties have all participated
in the debate. Sometimes they forget these farmers are normal
Canadians who want to earn a living for their families. As a
member of Parliament for that area I will continue to speak out on
their behalf with regard to the tobacco legislation. I hope hon.
members on all sides will help me speak out for them.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
listened very carefully to the hon. member who spoke for the
Liberal Party. I see that he too is very concerned about the
economic aspects. Apparently, his riding is in an agricultural area
where a lot of tobacco is grown. He mentioned 16,000 jobs, 22 per
cent of all farm jobs and $56 million worth of taxes. And this is in
a very rich province. Today, the economy in Montreal and the
province of Quebec is facing a host of problems.
I would appreciate if he would explain a few things for me. Did
he at any time consider talking to his government to try to establish
a measure of fairness and ensure some kind of economic balance?
Not so long ago, when it wanted to harmonize the GST in the
provinces of Eastern Canada because it thought they would lose a
lot more than Quebec, the government offered them $1.2 billion or
$1.3 billion as compensation. It has been calculated that in the
province of Quebec, and especially Montreal, this bill will cost us
$30 million.
I wonder why the Liberal Party, which decided to give $1.2
billion in compensation to the provinces in Eastern Canada, would
not do the same for Montreal. Does he think he could get this point
across to his government?
[English]
Mr. Speller: Madam Speaker, obviously the hon. member was
not listening to me as closely as he said he was. Members on this
side from Quebec and the minister have spoken out strongly on
behalf of the people of Quebec and Montreal. They have put
forward the argument very forcefully and have been very
successful in doing so.
I will not get into the GST, but I was going to comment on the
economic impact of the bill on my community and the impact of all
governments and the actions they take. Frankly the economic
impact of the bill will be very minimal. However I assure the hon.
member the people of Quebec are very well represented within
government by capable ministers, much more so than they are
through some of the voices on the other side.
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I compliment my colleague for
highlighting a couple of points. Unlike some other members of the
House he was here to appreciate an amendment was put forward by
a member on this side of the House which dealt with the concerns
of the Bloc and the Reform on the question of regulations. That
amendment has passed and regulations will be available for
scrutiny by the committee. It is a precedent setting item that works
to the advantage of all who want to take a look at the complete
impact of the bill.
(1315)
On this issue my colleague, who has always spoken on behalf of
his own constituents, will have to address the bill as it stands. The
speaker who proceeded him talked about the importance of
education to curbing behaviour, to modifying behaviour and to
weaning people away from the evils of tobacco use. I am
wondering if while
8719
he is defending the interests of his growers is he also accepting that
education and by extension controlling-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Order. The
hon. member, very briefly.
Mr. Speller: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
comments. If it is a question of raising tobacco taxes like the
Reform Party would have us do or putting in an education program,
I would certainly support the education program rather than
increasing an export tax.
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have reservations about this bill but I support it strongly
despite those reservations.
I am a former smoker and at one time I smoked 60 cigarettes a
day, which is a lot of tobacco. I first began smoking at age 16 as a
result of peer pressure and gradually I began smoking more and
more. Tobacco is a very insidious drug. It tends to grow on you and
the addiction develops both physically and psychologically over
the years. It was very difficult to quit the habit but I did about 10
years ago. So I know something about the problems of tobacco.
I support the spirit of the bill because it is certainly true that
young people tend to be the ones who get first hooked on tobacco
products and become the addicted adults later in life. In reality
cigarettes are a nasty product when you are first introduced to
them. I am sure if people began as adults to try cigarettes they
would reject them absolutely. It is something that really develops
as a result of peer pressure. The idea behind the bill that we should
address the problem of young people beginning to smoke is a very
good one.
I am not entirely certain that creating more restrictions on young
people who smoke will actually have the desired affect because
when you prohibit something from young people they tend to want
it that much more. On the other hand, given the importance of the
intent of this legislation, it is worth trying these restrictions that the
legislation proposes.
The second reservation I did have is sponsorship. I always
regarded the sponsorship by tobacco companies, breweries and
distilleries of arts and sporting events as something they did as
good corporate citizens. In reality we need the tobacco companies,
the distilleries and the breweries. If legitimate companies do not
produce these products that are demanded by the consumers, even
though these products have adverse health effects, then we know
from past historical experience that organized crime will produce
these products. It is a very necessary and good thing to have
legitimate industry producing these products for the marketplace.
The benefits flow to shareholders of those public companies, and
that is as it should be.
I always thought the payback of companies engaged in
producing products that have potentially adverse health effects
would be that they would want to be especially good corporate
citizens. I always regarded the sponsorship of tobacco companies
of things like the Grand Prix, or the breweries and distilleries of
things like the theatre, as something that they did as good corporate
citizens in order to in a sense make up for the fact that they were
producing products that did have adverse health effects.
(1320 )
I must say that in my own riding this theory that I have held for a
very long time was eroded somewhat when I found that a local
volunteer theatre, Theatre Aquarius, developed in the community,
wanted to go into the big leagues and managed to obtain some
government money and also some sponsorship from a tobacco
company. When the new theatre was built as a result of this
sponsorship they changed the name to the du Maurier Centre. That
was about 10 years ago. I felt at the time that was a terribly tacky
thing to do and that it eroded the whole sense of generosity from
the tobacco company that it should want to rename the theatre with
its own logo.
In the one sense I am not so sure that the sponsorship of these
major events that has been the subject of so much debate here
actually is going to have an effect in deterring young people from
smoking. I am not sure that is going to be the case. However, again,
like the other aspects of the bill, it is worth trying.
In the other sense I do not understand why the tobacco
companies if their intention is not so much advertising as it is being
good corporate citizens, I do not see why they take umbrage at the
provisions in the bill which do not eliminate their logos but which
merely put them in a less prominent position. I would have thought
that this would not be something that they would reject so hotly, as
appears to be the case.
That brings me to the third point. The reason why the tobacco
companies react so aggressively to Bill C-71 is a tremendous
climate of conflict has been created as a result of the lobby groups
on both sides of the equation. Certainly the tobacco companies
have been able to afford very strong lobbyists but what has actually
fueled the acrimony and the conflict have been the government
funded lobbies that exist on the other side, the anti-smoking lobbies
like the Non-Smokers' Rights Association and the Canadian
Council on Smoking and Health.
These groups have received tens of millions of dollars from
Health Canada and provincial health ministries over the years in
order to promote anti-smoking. I wish I could say that this was
something that was prompted by altruism, but I am afraid that big
bucks count in this instance and many of the principal players in
these lobby groups, just like the lobby groups supported by the
tobacco industry, are getting very big bucks indeed. In fact, if we
try to find out how much money they are receiving it will enter into
the range of $100,000 plus.
8720
Indeed I believe a chief executive of one of the anti-smoking
lobbies is around the range of about $180,000 a year. This is
government money ultimately, government money coming from
our Department of Health. I point out that the Department of
Health has supplied $500,000 a year over the last two years to
the Non-Smokers' Rights Association, a lobby.
The lobbying extends beyond these named organizations. It also
includes various health organizations that have very much
something at stake. What is at stake ultimately is research dollars.
If we look at the public accounts for Health Canada what we find
is a disproportionate amount of money from Health Canada which
is spent on various types of studies on tobacco control. Some of
these studies are nothing less than exercises in propaganda,
attempts to propagandize members of the House of Commons.
I refer very quickly to a study that we all saw, a questionnaire
that we were approached with last November from the faculty of
medicine of York University, I believe it was. It was conducted by
Mary Jane Ashley, M.D., faculty of medicine of the University of
Toronto. This was a survey that asked us for our views on health
promotion. It was a telephone survey. After one got into the survey
by the person questioning one realized that these questions were
directed toward tobacco control.
I submit that this survey was nothing more than an exercise to
propagandize members of the House. When I called the authors of
the survey they refused to give me copies of the survey. As a matter
of fact, they hung up on me. When I called Health Canada to find
out how much money was spent and whether I could get a copy,
because Health Canada was sponsoring the survey, it said the
survey was not available.
(1325 )
In other words, I could not get a copy of the survey that was
phoned to all the MPs in this House of Commons from either
Health Canada or the authors of the survey even though it was
entirely financed by Health Canada. So it was simply a propaganda
exercise.
I am happy to say that I do not believe that this Minister of
Health or this government is bringing forward C-71 as a result of
being driven by these propaganda exercises by these various lobby
groups that stand to make so much money in government funds. I
really do believe that the bill is being driven by a genuine desire to
find a solution to young people smoking.
What I do hope is that when this bill finally passes, the health
minister will turn to the Department of Health and do something
about the $60 million in the last three years on tobacco control
research. I hope he will turn back to the department and redirect
that type of funding to health care, research, muscular dystrophy
and cancer and even the creation of tobacco abuse clinics.
However, let us stop funding lobby organizations. That is the third
reason why I support this bill.
The fourth and final reason is the amendments moved by the
member for Lambton-Middlesex, a backbencher, who moved I
think the most important amendment and the most important
element of this bill which is to require that any regulation to be set
as a result of this legislation be referred first to this House of
Commons and debated by a standing committee before the
regulation can be passed. This means that when this legislation
passes there will still be an opportunity for all the stakeholders to
make sure that the regulations really do reflect the needs not only
of the tobacco industry and the freedoms of the tobacco industry
but also the needs of Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I thank
the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth for his remarks.
A long time ago, Victor Hugo wrote, in Les Misérables, that the
State does the accounting for us and it does not make mistakes.
That is what Inspector Javert told Jean Valjean when he put in a
request for payment of the very small amount he had earned after
spending 19 years in jail in Toulon.
Today, the modern version of Les Mis would read: ``The State
thinks for you and it does not make mistakes''. As my colleague,
the hon, member for Chambly, said earlier, ready to think has
replaced ready to wear, one thought fits all has replaced one size
fits all.
There is something fundamentally wrong in this. Everyone in
this House is against smoking and against tobacco being readily
available to young people, but this is not the way to deal with the
problem.
I myself come from a family of smokers. My father's father used
to smoke a pipe, my mother's father smoked Alouette tobacco, and
both of them enjoyed cigars. My father smoked approximately two
packs of Export a day, unfiltered, and my mother still smokes the
same brand today.
I saw so many of those packs of cigarettes on the kitchen table at
my parents, so many cigarettes and butts all over the place, that the
thought of starting to smoke never occurred to me. I have never
touched that forbidden fruit. Perhaps I should have abstained from
other things, but seeing my parents and family smoking around me
acting as a disincentive, made me a non smoker. Still today, I look
at my mother smoking and it says right on her pack of cigarettes
that smoking is harmful to her lungs, that it could be dangerous if
she became pregnant-nothing to worry about on that score-and,
since she smokes American cigarettes, that the surgeon general has
determined that smoking can be dangerous to your health.
8721
Smokers do not even read these warnings any more, they are
so used to them now.
The education effort the hon. member for Joliette and the hon.
member for Berthier-Montcalm referred to earlier is the best
thing we can do.
Where should it start? In school and with people giving a good
example, but it should continue at work. When our young people
go to work, when they are in school-let us prevent dropping
out-they are not smoking.
(1330)
When young people are at work or in school, they do not engage
in criminal activities. It is all a matter of how one uses one's time.
One way to keep our young people busy is to get them back in
school or in the workplace, to convince them to pursue their
professional development.
Reducing tobacco use is definitely a noble cause, but I do not
think that the bill will help that cause. Rather, it will result in
economic losses for regions such as Lanaudière, and it will also
increase unemployment in regions such as Haldimand-Norfolk,
which is represented by the hon. member.
Are we going to solve a problem by creating other problems
elsewhere? I do not think so. Nor do I believe that the promoters
and sponsors themselves would be seriously hurt if international
events in Montreal, Valleyfield, Ville-Marie and elsewhere in
Quebec and in Canada were to disappear because of the loss of
major sponsors.
Therefore, I will oppose Bill C-71, as I did at second reading.
[English]
Mr. Bryden: Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on something
my hon. colleague said, which was that the key to stopping young
people from smoking is education. One reason I support passage of
the bill is that I believe we have to try whatever we can to stop
young people from smoking.
However, one thing that it will accomplish is take government
money way from the special interest groups, the lobbys that make
so much money by propagandizing both sides of the issue, by
fomenting conflict and by pretending to educate the public.
Millions of dollars are given to these organizations that say they
are educating the public. If Health Canada really wants to educate
young people, let it give those millions of dollars to the schools, to
teachers in the schools whether in Quebec, Ontario or any other
province, Let the schools teach the children the problems with
smoking. Do not give the money to the lobbyists.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-71 today. I would like to
make a few remarks about the comments of the member for
Haldimand-Norfolk, who extolled the benefits of tobacco
producers and the positive impact it has made on Canadian society.
I want to go on record by saying that it is an absolutely
outrageous distortion of the truth to say the tobacco producers in
any way are even remotely considered a benefit to Canadian
society. It is an affront to every Canadian who is suffering from
tobacco related diseases. Today the Canadian Cancer Society
released a study which tragically demonstrates that women have
unfortunately bypassed men in terms of lung cancer. It is the
number one killer of women. What a tragedy. Those are the
benefits the tobacco producers are giving to Canadians.
Madam Speaker, 45,000 people die every year as a result of
tobacco related diseases; 250,000 children take up tobacco every
single year. Half of them will die prematurely and the morbidity
statistics will be greater for them than their non-smoking
colleagues.
The cost to the health care system is billions of dollars. The loss
in gross national product is billions of dollars. What is the benefit
of this?
Today the primary cause of cancer deaths in women is lung
cancer. It took women 20 year to catch up, but by heaven, ``you
have come a long way, baby''. Indeed, they have. These are
statistics of which no one can be proud and are a tragedy.
In 1994, just after the election, the situation was similar to what
it is today except there was tobacco smuggling primarily centred in
Quebec and on aboriginal reserves in Quebec. That is a bad thing.
(1335 )
However, not only was tobacco smuggled but also alcohol,
people, weapons and drugs. Smuggling conduits were occurring
across the board in full view of the police who were told to leave
things alone because they were afraid of instigating another Oka
situation, a significant consideration.
What did the government of the day do? This Liberal
government dropped the tax on tobacco, decreasing the price by up
to 50 per cent in some provinces. What has that done? It has
increased the number of children who begin smoking every single
year by about 50,000 to 100,000.
I want to read from a document published by the Ministry of
Health by Drs. Morrison, Mao and Wigle called ``The Impact of the
Cigarette Price Rollback on the Future Health of Canadian
adolescents''. I will read a couple of excerpts.
``It is estimated that a 20 per cent reduction in the price of
cigarettes in the next five years will result in over 142,000 new
8722
adolescent smokers by the end of 1998. Among these persons,
almost 16,900 smoking attributable deaths will occur before the
age of 70, well before their normal life span should be finished''.
``A 50 per cent price reduction is estimated to result in over
355,000 new adolescent smokers over the next five years which
will result in approximately 40,000 smoking attributable deaths
before the age of 70''. That is what the government has done.
The last paragraph of this document put out by the Ministry of
Health says: ``Government tobacco control in Canada has had three
main components: health promotion campaigns, high tobacco taxes
and restrictive policies on public smoking''. This is important.
``Even the temporary abandonment of high cigarette taxes will
likely lead to large numbers of teenagers becoming and/or
remaining cigarette smokers. The health consequences of the
recent tax decrease will continue for decades''.
I cannot think of a single piece of legislation by any government
in the history of the country that has had a more negative impact on
the health and welfare of Canadians, and certainly on the health and
welfare of children. I do not understand how the people on that
side, who have children themselves, can in all good conscience
support that bill.
Right after that, I brought in a private member's bill which
demanded that the government put the tobacco taxes back where
they were as of January 1994. What was the government's
response? It would not make it votable so that it could become law.
It would not give the House the opportunity to make the bill
votable, become law and have a chance for a full debate. The
government cut it off in committee. What a shame.
In the intervening three years, as a direct result of this policy,
hundreds of thousands of children are now picking up cigarette
smoking. It did not have to happen. There was a solution to
addressing the smuggling situation without compromising the
health, welfare and lives of Canadian children.
In 1992, the Conservative government of the day put an export
tax on cigarettes. Within six weeks, smuggling went down by 70
per cent. The tobacco companies said to the government: ``If you
don't remove this export tax, we will get out of Canada''. What did
the Conservative government do? It buckled under the pressure,
removed the export tax and the smuggling went up again. There are
solutions. The reason why I focus on this is that cost is the single
most important factor in consumption, particularly among
children.
The government sold out in 1994 because it knew the tobacco
companies would bring a strong lobby and say to the government:
``You can't put an export tax on''. Instead the government lowered
the price and we heard champagne bottles being uncorked in all the
tobacco companies. They must think we are fools to do this. They
probably could not imagine that any government would
compromise the health, welfare and lives of Canadians for political
expediency, but that is exactly what happened.
(1340)
Furthermore the government promised a $60 million investment
in education after it lowered the cost because it recognized there
would be an increase in consumption. However, it did not even put
$6 million into education. The other $54 million somehow
disappeared. The government's promise was not kept and people,
particularly children, are paying the price to this day.
During the past three years, with obvious evidence of the
devastating effects of the government's tobacco tax rollback, the
government has done nothing. Now it is bringing in a bill which we
are going to support. It is not perfect by any stretch of the
imagination, in fact it is quite weak. We are going to support it
because it is better than nothing.
However, there are solutions to the problem. The government
could have enacted solutions that would have addressed the
smuggling situation without compromising the health and welfare
of Canadians. That is what the government should have done.
First, it should have kept the cost at the January 1994 level and
even increased the taxes on tobacco. Second, it should have put an
export tax on tobacco in order to eliminate smuggling. Third, it
needed to enforce the law.
Nobody talks about the law-abiding aboriginal people on
reserves who live in the midst of thugs who engage in smuggling. I
do not care whether they are aboriginal or non-aboriginal. These
people are breaking the law. If they are breaking the law, the law
has to be enforced and they should be dealt with accordingly. One
law, one land, one people. However, that is not happening.
The government has put its tail between its legs and has not
enforced the law. The law needs to be enforced not only for the
sake of principle but also because nobody speaks for the
law-abiding aboriginal people on the reserves who live in a culture
of fear in the midst of these thugs. It does not suit them very much
to have people who traffic in automatic weapons in their midst.
Fourth is education. Unless you have been living in a cave,
Madam Speaker, it is impossible not to recognize the harmful,
damaging, deleterious effects of tobacco consumption. We have to
invest in children. As a physician I know that most people pick up
tobacco when they are 11 or 12 years of age, not when they are 20.
When they are 11 or 12 they do not know the difference. You can
tell them as much as you want that tobacco will cause lung cancer,
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and a number of other
problems later on and they simply will not listen because they have
a sense of immortality.
8723
If we are going to have an effective education policy we have
to address children in terms that are meaningful to them. We have
to address their sense of narcissism, which is normal for that age,
and their sense of self. Tell them that their skin will look ugly,
that their breath will smell, that their hair will smell. These are
things they can understand. Tell them that they will age
prematurely. These are the things they should be telling children,
not that their lungs will look black when they are 55 years of age.
That would be a far more effective way to address the educational
situation with children.
The primary reason women and young girls start smoking is to
be thin, to be skinny. This gets into a whole different issue which
we can address at another time. The secondary reason is to be cool,
which is a very difficult issue to address. If we attack their sense of
narcissism, we will be much more effective in our educational
policies than we would be if we talked about the long term effects
of smoking to one's health.
Fifth, the government needs to stop subsidizing tobacco
producers. Sixth, stop promotion and seventh, introduce crop
substitution policies for the farmers. Contrary to the claims of the
member for Haldimand-Norfolk, these policies do work.
(1345 )
I would like to address again the aggressive lobby which is being
put on by the Bloc Quebecois on the sponsorship issue. Would
these cultural and athletic events really disappear from the
Canadian scene? Where would they go? To England? To France?
To the United States? Of course not. All of those countries either
have or are going to ban tobacco sponsorship of cultural and
athletic events. They are not going anywhere. This is just another
move by the tobacco companies to try to prevent having any
restrictions placed on them and they will go to any length to do
that.
This week during this debate the Bloc Quebecois sponsored an
event in the Hall of Honour of the House of Commons, which was a
front for the tobacco companies, where free drinks and food were
served. It was a cheap, shameless effort to try to seduce members
of the House to vote against Bill C-71. I cannot think of one reason
why the people of Quebec should be proud of the members they
elected to the House who would compromise the health and welfare
of their children. The province of Quebec has the highest number
of kids who smoke. They are compromising those children under
the guise of tobacco sponsorship.
The tobacco companies claim that it is an issue of free speech.
They hide their true agenda under spurious arguments.
In the United States they increased the content of carcinogens
and addictive materials in tobacco.
If they say that advertising has no effect on children, why are
they currently engaged in such a fight? Why do they invest
millions of dollars into sponsorships? Out of the goodness of their
hearts? I do not think so. Why are they currently engaged in the
most aggressive advertising campaign in China that the world has
ever seen? They are doing it because they recognize there are
millions of potential smokers they can capitalize on. China is only
beginning to realize the cost.
The tobacco companies have one agenda, to ensure that the
greatest number of people in this or any other country smoke. They
do not give a damn whether there will be any adverse effects. They
are purveyors of a carcinogenic, toxic material which, if brought to
this country today, would never be legalized.
A libertarian would say that people have the right to do what
they want. People should have the right to consume whatever they
want, whenever they want. However, libertarian views do not apply
to 11 year olds. That is why we are trying to put forth good, tough
legislation that will address the tobacco epidemic we have in
Canada today.
I urge the government to do the following. First, be courageous
and restore the tobacco taxes to the January 1995 level. Second, put
an export tax on tobacco. That will cut the legs out from underneath
the smugglers. Third, enforce the law so that those people who are
smuggling are brought to justice. Fourth, introduce appropriate and
effective educational policies within our schools, not only for
tobacco but also for alcohol, pot, cocaine, heroin, et cetera. The
dangers of all those substances need to be told through our
education system.
This is an opportunity for the government to take a leadership
role on this important issue. It can do something constructive for
the health and welfare of all Canadians and, most important, for the
health and welfare of our children.
(1350 )
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his comments. As the
hon. member knows, I do not agree with them certainly.
I did not mention this earlier in my speech, but in my riding of
Haldimand-Norfolk not only do I have the largest number of
producers of tobacco in the country but I also have the largest
native reserve in the country. I use reserve in that sense.
Yes, the tobacco producers do support me in my riding.
However, I was shocked to hear some of the statements coming out
of the Reform Party members who have called on the government
to put on an export tax and to increase the taxes. Even today on the
local radio station the Reform candidate in my riding said they are
against this. I wonder if he has consulted with the local candidate in
my riding who keeps claiming that Reform would not do any of
that if they were in government. It is just a question of free speech.
8724
I know the hon. member and I know his background. We have
talked about this issue today. I heard just a clip of him talking
about the tobacco diversification program. I know he, unlike other
members in his party, has spoken to me and has said that he is
concerned with tobacco farmers and producers, unlike his House
leader who said that we should just get rid of them all.
I want to explain to the hon. member, who may not be aware, in
terms of the tobacco diversification program, as I explained earlier,
there are only so many places where we can diversify. In fact, with
an 80 acre farm there is not a lot that one can do in terms of
producing other products. They have been into ginseng and some
other things but frankly the markets have been cluttered. What does
he expect these farmers to do when his party puts them out of
work?
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Madam Speaker, we
are very sensitive to anybody who could lose a job. That is the last
thing we want to happen. However, we have to balance this
situation out with what is actually occurring.
We have a group of individuals producing a substance that is the
single leading cause of preventable death in this country today. The
hon. member may talk about 16,000 people who are employed in
the industry but let us balance this off with the fact that 45,000
Canadians die every year from tobacco related diseases. Two
hundred and fifty thousand children pick up the tobacco habit every
year.
The fact is the tobacco lobby is actively going and supporting
this member for its own gains. It wants to invest money into this
individual's coffers, not for the benefit of the individual but for the
benefit of its own pockets. It has no interest whatsoever in trying to
do something for the betterment of Canadian society and for the
people therein.
The reality is that tobacco producers are caught in a difficult
situation. Crop diversification has worked in a number of countries
and I will be happy to offer the hon. member examples of where
this has occurred. However, beyond that we are looking at a
situation where the production of the substance is costing the
Canadian taxpayer and society billions of dollars in losses to health
care and to the gross national product.
I would ask the hon. member, when he contemplates this
situation, to balance out the supposedly tiny gains that he has in his
own riding to the collective good of Canadian society.
[Translation]
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member who
has just spoken about Bill C-71. He gave us a few issues to think
about and I would like to congratulate him.
(1355)
The hon. member spoke about one thing that our friends in the
Bloc Quebecois are ignoring. While he, and we, are speaking about
the health of Canadians throughout the country, wherever they may
live, the members of the Bloc Quebecois are ignoring the health of
young and old alike. They are still confusing the issue of
sponsorships with the issue of health. I would like to thank the
member for coming back to the topic that concerns us today, which
is a bill that deals with health.
He emphasized certain very important themes, obviously, but I
would like to ask him a question. It is somewhat political, I admit,
but it is also necessary.
[English]
When the member talks about the importance of a
comprehensive strategy to combat a preventable illness he
addressed a series of items and he made some recommendations.
They have been considered by committee and they will continue to
be debated in this House.
He pointed to the export tax which regrettably was tried a few
short years ago and did not work. We would be prepared to consider
that or at least his views on the matter. More important, the
member ought to know that when there was a reduction in the taxes
on tobacco a few short years ago there was as well a commitment
of $180 million to provide funds for education, enforcement,
promotion and research. Of those moneys spread out over four
years, he will know that in the course of the last three years there
was $104 million and $24 million currently available for this year.
The Speaker: I am sure there is enough of a question in there for
the hon. member to address it in one minute.
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr. Speaker,
certainly there were quite a few questions in there. I will hit them
one after another.
First, contrary to what my hon. friend said, the export tax did
work. In 1992 the Conservative government of the day put forth an
$8 export tax on tobacco. Within six weeks smuggling decreased
70 per cent. What did the government do in response to pressure
from the tobacco companies? It put its tail between its legs and
removed the tax. The tax did work.
Second, this government earmarked $64 million for education.
Less than 10 per cent has actually been spent on tobacco education.
Where the other $54 million went only the government knows.
Most likely it went into the general revenues. What is certain is that
it did not go to where it was supposed to go; again another broken
promise by this government, compromising the health and welfare
of Canadian children.
The Speaker: It being 2 p.m. we will now proceed to Statements
by Members.
8725
8725
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Janko PeriG
(Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, during a
special ceremony on March 1, Cambridge resident Bill Shaw
received an Oscar from the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and
Sciences for the technological development of IMAX.
While studying at the Galt Collegiate Institute, Robert Kerr and
Graeme Ferguson, together with Bill Shaw, came up with the idea
of a large screen format motion picture. Following their first IMAX
type film at Montreal's Expo '67, 148 IMAX theatres have opened
worldwide and more than 100 IMAX films have been produced,
making the company one of the largest grossing motion picture
theatres in North America.
The IMAX success story shows that Canadians can not only
compete but lead in the high technology sector.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, as the election approaches, the federal troops in
Quebec are panicking. The proof is that a provincial Liberal,
Monique Gagnon-Tremblay, is supporting the present Conservative
member for Sherbrooke, with the blessing of the Liberal ministers
of finance, intergovernmental affairs, and citizenship and
immigration.
The electoral message sent to the Quebec people by federalists is
therefore the following one: ``Do not vote on the basis of the ideas
presented by the federalist parties, because in the end, Liberal or
Conservative, it boils down to the same thing. You must vote
against the Bloc Quebecois''.
What federalists fear most is that Quebecers will once again rise
up, as they did in 1993, and take real power for themselves by
voting for the Bloc Quebecois, the only federal party devoted to the
defence of Quebec's interests until sovereignty is achieved.
When provincial Liberals start supporting federal Conservative
candidates, it means that the federal Liberal Party, the head office,
as the Prime Minister so often says in this House, has quite simply
lost control of its provincial branch offices.
[English]
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, every
musician dreams of performing in New York's famous Carnegie
Hall. For most it remains just a dream, but not for members of the
Wetaskiwin Composite High School's vocal jazz band ensemble,
the JazScats.
For one week next February New York City will eclipse New
Orleans as the jazz capital of the United States. Ten of the best
student jazz ensembles from Canada and the U.S. have been invited
to participate in the second annual North American Vocal Jazz
Extravaganza.
The Wetaskiwin students will give two solo appearances in
Carnegie Hall and then join the other groups for the grand finale.
While in New York the ensemble will take part in special
workshops and give concerts.
This prestigious honour would not have been possible if not for
the dedication and hard work of the ensemble's music director,Mr. Paul Sweet. Our congratulations go to all these dedicated
young musicians.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
Park City West Community Club in my riding was audited by
Revenue Canada and found to be in arrears to the tune of over
$10,000 on the basis of not having charged and remitted GST on
registrants in sports programs for people 15 years of age and older.
I object to the policy of charging GST on these programs. I even
more strongly object to demanding of a community club run by
volunteers that it comes up with this kind of money.
At a time when we hear so much from the government about
dealing with youth crime and other related issues, it beats me why
we should be penalizing community clubs and making sports
activities more costly for Canadian families with teenagers.
I call on the Liberals to change this policy before other
community clubs are hurt as well. Get tough on the big
corporations for a change; pick on somebody your own size.
* * *
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Dr. David Strangway, who has just been admitted as an officer of
the Order of Canada, retires this summer after more than a decade
8726
as president of the University of British Columbia, having directed
the expansion of the university's advanced research in science,
medicine, biology, engineering and related disciplines to a position
of leadership in North America, all this in close co-operation with
business and industry.
Pure research in the university has yielded extra community
dividends in export industries and in the skilled professional jobs
emerging with that.
The federal government's budget announcing the creation of a
Canadian foundation for innovation and marked expansion of
existing federal programs for networks of centres of excellence and
industrial research assistance reflects the work already done in our
universities in investing in knowledge, in advanced research and
education, and in students and teachers as a key to our economic
well-being in the next century.
* * *
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, March 8 is International Women's Day. I am proud of the
accomplishments the government has made in the sphere of
women's issues. Let me name a few.
Bill C-72 made a defence of self-induced intoxication a thing of
the past. We passed approximately 100 Criminal Code amendments
to deal with women's concerns. The witness protection program
provides safety for women who come forward and report crimes.
Amendments have been made to the Criminal Code to prosecute
Canadians who travel abroad and sexually exploit children. There
are tougher laws against those who exploit juvenile prostitutes and
those who stalk their victims, and tougher laws to protect the public
from sexual offenders.
We listened to Justice Arbour's report on prison reform. We
formed a partnership with the Canadian Association of
Broadcasters to wage a public campaign against violence against
women.
Our health strategy is responsive to women's health. The
national health forum devoted a section to women's health and we
are listening to its recommendations. Prenatal nutrition programs,
research funds for children, the strategic initiative program and the
concerns-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Bramalea-Gore-Malton.
* * *
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, thousands of low income families in Ontario and
across Canada depend on social housing.
(1405 )
Yesterday the government reached its first agreement with the
province on the transfer of the administration of social housing.
However in Ontario the Tory government wants to shift
responsibility for social housing to the municipalities.
I ask the Minister of Public Works and Government Services to
reaffirm our commitment to quality, affordable social housing.
Among Canada's neediest families social housing is a necessity,
not a luxury, so the government must preserve it.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, given
the imminent passage of the tobacco bill, I wish to speak out
against the behaviour of the hon. member for Saint-Maurice and
Prime Minister of Canada, who will become known as one of the
people with the primary responsibility for the first class funeral of
such events as the Trois-Rivières Grand Prix.
In fact, it will remain in the collective memory that, despite
massive mobilization on a number of fronts, particularly from
people in his own region who fear for their jobs, the Prime Minister
continues to unfeelingly turn a deaf ear to these calls for help.
In 1993, the Liberals managed to convince the people in
Saint-Maurice that they would benefit, as would the people in their
entire region, and Quebec as a whole, from the Prime Minister's
actions. Today, like the rest of us, they see that the end result is
nothing but profound frustration, because the Prime Minister
refuses to react to the negative impact of the anti-sponsorship
clauses in his bill.
Fortunately, the people of Saint-Maurice will soon have a chance
to make themselves heard, and we have confidence in them.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the people of Prince George-Peace River, especially
their children and grandchildren, appreciate that the federal deficit
has been reduced.
However I would be remiss if I did not also point out that these
same constituents know the Liberal government does not deserve
the credit. The taxpayers of Canada do. The government is taking
$25 billion more in taxes from them. That brought down the deficit,
not government spending cuts.
This sad fact is particularly evident to the people of the isolated
northern community of Mackenzie. While their cost of living goes
up, the government refuses to reinstate their northern residents
deduction.
8727
The Liberals waste billions of dollars on grants and loans to
big business yet ignore the needs of northern communities: $144
million to Bombardier but nothing extra to complete paving of the
Alaska highway.
Priorities. Why can the government not get it right?
* * *
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
acknowledge the tremendous efforts of six pioneers who were
inducted on January 22 into the Canadian Mining Hall of Fame
located in Elliot Lake in my riding of Algoma.
These Canadians are Robert Boyle, Walter Curlook, Walter
Holyk, Alfred Powis, Franklin Spragins and Joseph Tyrrell. Clearly
it is through the efforts of people like these that many small and
some remote communities are able to enjoy the high technology
and environmentally sustainable development associated with
mining today.
In particular Walter Holyk provides an excellent example of this
pioneering spirit. His innovative theories on the genesis of
volcanogenic massive sulphide deposits led to the discovery of the
Half Mile deposit in New Brunswick, Nanisivik on Baffin Island
and, most notable, the Kidd Creek deposit near Timmins, Ontario.
On behalf of all members I congratulate these inductees on their
impressive accomplishments.
The Canadian Mining Hall of Fame in Elliot Lake is worth a
visit. I invite all members to enjoy this first class site.
* * *
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Canada-U.S. border is one of the longest and
friendliest borders in the world. Every year there are over 90
million border crossings at over 500 ports of entry such as border
crossings, airports and harbours.
Given this, it is remarkable that so few criminals gain access to
our country. This is not by chance, but it is the result of a very
effective co-operative effort between Canadian and American law
and border officials.
Every year countless lawbreakers are apprehended at ports of
entry. Moreover, through efforts such as the joint
immigration-RCMP task force initiative and Bill C-44 the
government has done much to rid Canada of such undesirables. In
1995-96 over 1,600 criminals were removed from Canada.
The government's enforcement policies and the unique
co-operative efforts that exist between Canadian and American law
and border officials will continue to protect Canadians.
(1410)
[Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Human Resources Development yesterday gave in to
pressures from his Liberal caucus colleagues and announced
adjustments to the employment insurance act.
In order to counteract the potential negative effects of the
calculation of short work weeks, the government has just launched
plans for adjustments in 29 high-employment regions. These will
run until November 15, 1998, and two different methods will be
used to encourage the unemployed to accept the so-called short
work weeks.
In certain regions, the method applied will make it possible to
group short weeks together, while in others the method selected
will be to exclude these when calculating eligibility for benefits.
The adjustments announced yesterday to the Employment
Insurance Act confirm that our primary concern is to encourage
people who are out of work to return to the work force.
* * *
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday,
the Canada Labour Congress revealed that Canada holds an
unfortunate record: wages paid women in Canada are the lowest of
all the industrialized countries, after Japan. In 1994, women
formed the main contingent of the poor.
Employment equity is essential to an egalitarian society. When
jobs are increasingly threatened and income security is vital to a
changing society, the Liberal government is denying its election
promises, cutting social programs dramatically and lowering its
unemployment insurance benefits.
The Bloc Quebecois considers that the Liberal government,
throughout its mandate, has increased economic disparity, which
gives rise to a two tier society where women and children form the
majority of the poor and the marginalized.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Transport recently announced that federal
cuts to British Columbia's research and development had gone too
far.
8728
What does the government do? It closes the Esquimalt defence
research detachment and moves it to Halifax. This will cost the
taxpayer over $5 million per year in lost contracts and $8 million
in moving costs. It will decrease British Columbia's research staff
to only 1.4 per cent of the national allotment, eliminate our world
leading Arctic research facility and decrease our ability to
capitalize on far east markets, all this in the year of the
government's self-proclaimed year of Asia-Pacific. Even the
defence department officials call this a blow to research.
What is the real reason for the closure? It is to coerce the people
of Nova Scotia to vote Liberal in the next election.
Once again the government is shafting the people of British
Columbia to save its own political hide.
* * *
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians have told the government that the new EI
legislation is a disincentive to accept small weeks of work. Both
employers and employees from all regions have identified this
problem.
Under the leadership of the Minister of Human Resources
Development we have taken swift action to solve this problem as
quickly as possible.
In Cumberland-Colchester where unemployment is greater
than 10 per cent and long term jobs are difficult to find, the new
adjustment project will enable workers to bundle small weeks.
In other areas workers will be able to exclude small weeks from
their calculation of benefits. This will ensure that workers in every
region of the country are able to take full advantage of all available
work without having their benefits lowered.
I am pleased the government has responded to the needs of part
time and seasonal workers. It has ensured that every hour of work
counts and that small weeks will no longer result in lower benefits
to Canadians.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the day before yesterday, a number of Bloc members
gave us a brilliant demonstration of their talents as public
entertainers.
The tobacco companies provided them with a lunch, drinks and
entertainment, all free in exchange for their participation in a
public demonstration.
How could the Bloc turn down such an appealing offer? Food,
drink, photo ops with sports stars and top billing on the evening
news, all for free. Compliments of the tobacco companies-
(1415)
[English]
The Speaker: I ask members to be very judicious in their choice
of words when making statements.
_____________________________________________
8728
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, there is utter confusion at the present time concerning this
weekend's broadcast of the Australian Grand Prix via the CBC and
the Sports Network.
On one hand, the spokesperson for Health Canada says that the
bill does not prohibit broadcasting of the Australian Grand Prix and
other Grand Prix racing events of the season. On the other hand,
according to Normand Legault, who has the TV broadcasting rights
for the Formula I race, and I quote: ``If the bill is passed, Grand
Prix events will not be broadcast because cigarette brands sold in
Canada appear on the cars and the drivers''.
Can the minister tell us whether under the provisions of the bill,
it will be possible to televise the Australian Grand Prix on the
weekend and whether broadcasts of other Grand Prix events will be
allowed, even if the cars carry a logo or brand of a tobacco product?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I fully understand the position of the hon. member opposite.
Perhaps he might reflect on the fact that the bill presently before
the House has not been passed. How can the member opposite
make a conclusion when the legislation has not been passed?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, for someone who in a newspaper referred to legislation as
though it had already been passed to say today that since the bill
has not been passed, he cannot answer, verges on the frivolous.
Today we will vote on the bill at third reading. Under this bill,
will it be possible to broadcast the Australian Grand Prix and other
Grand Prix events, yes or no-the question is clear-since his bill
happens to deal with these matters? I would ask the minister to be
responsible enough to answer my question now.
8729
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the minister has attempted over the last number of months to be
extremely candid with the hon. member opposite. I hope he and
members of his party will start to be responsible in terms of the
information contained in the bill.
Just so that the hon. member fully understands-and this is
about the fifth time people have had to clarify it-I ask him to
listen very attentively. Before and after October 1, 1998 the
legislation-and I want to be careful here-will not prohibit the
broadcasting of sporting events originating in Canada and in other
countries including Grand Prix racing.
Even representatives of the firms he stands to support and tries to
speak on behalf of knew that information a long time ago.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the time frame referred to by the minister does not apply
to one clause, and if I could say it is clause 31, I would, but I will
not, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: Please put your question now.
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister, if it is true
that this clause is protected by this time frame, to put it in writing
and say so-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Lévis.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
(1420)
The Speaker: My colleagues, I would rather the bill not be
mentioned at all, but, after questions were raised a few days ago, I
reviewed all the questions. Since none dealt directly with the bill, I
allowed them.
I would also ask that, in their answers, the ministers not refer to
the bill or any of its parts. If answers could remain general in
nature, it would be best, much better than referring directly to
clauses after saying they would not be mentioned and then
mentioning them again.
That is my decision. The hon. member for Lévis.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of Health.
I find it ironic that, on the one hand, the minister claims to want
to protect the health of young people in Quebec and Canada, while,
on the other hand, the primary effect of his anti-tobacco policy will
be to jeopardize the future of events such as the film festival, which
gives young creators a chance to make themselves known, show
what they can do and get their career off the ground.
Does the minister recognize that his policies banning the
sponsorship of cultural events may well result in denying young
artists important opportunities to launch their career?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the preamble of the hon. member's question is absolute nonsense.
The hon. member knows that the full intent and purpose of that
legislation are health related.
The hon. member also knows, as do all the groups in his
province and elsewhere to which he has referred, that sponsorship
is not being banned, that sponsorship promotion is not being
banned and that after the implementation period there will be no
banning of promotion and no banning of sponsorship promotion.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, let us approach
the issue from a different angle. The government is attacking
sporting and cultural events in Quebec, while continuing to support
tobacco research in Ontario.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Dubé: How can the minister claim his sole focus is health,
when his government is still subsidizing, through Agriculture
Canada, experimental research on tobacco growing?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman should know
that in 1996-97 the funding for research was down some 90 per cent
compared with the level it was at in the mid-1980s. That research,
which involves about one and a half person-years, is focused on
agronomic matters which have absolutely nothing to do with the
promotion of tobacco production. Our emphasis is on
diversification and assisting farmers in finding ways to get out of
tobacco production.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, for a month the Prime Minister has been in denial about
his government's role in cutting health care. But yesterday in
question period he finally admitted that the Liberals had cut health
care, and cut it they have, with a $1.2 billion cut in federal transfers
to Ontario alone.
The effects of these Liberal cuts are being felt today in Toronto
with the announced closings of 10 hospitals, including the
Wellesley and the Women's College hospitals. Ten hospitals are
gone in Toronto, a dozen closed in Thunder Bay, Sudbury,
Pembroke, London and Ottawa, and behind it all, the Liberal
Government of Canada.
8730
(1425 )
How does the health minister propose to repair the damage that
federal cuts to health care are doing in Ontario?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
when a government is faced with a deficit the size of ours it has to
cut. It cannot ignore 20 to 25 per cent of its spending which is
transfers to the provinces.
The leader of the Reform Party referred to the $1.2 billion
reduction in those transfers to Ontario. What he did not mention
was the $500 million reduction in interest cost to that province as a
result of the actions that the government has taken. Nor did he
make a reference to the $4.5 billion tax cut that will reduce
Ontario's revenues, three and a half times larger than the reduction
in transfers.
In other words, he should understand that if hospitals are being
closed in Ontario it is as a result of a political choice. Tax cuts are
being made. I will not dispute them, but they are not the result of a
reduction in transfers from the government.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, where was the health minister in all of this? This health
minister clawed and scratched to get a couple of million dollars
transferred from another riding to his riding but where was he when
there was a $4 billion cut in health care?
There was a budget discussion in cabinet before the budget came
down and a choice was made to subsidize businesses and
corporations to the tune of $7 billion while cutting health care by
almost $4 billion.
Why did the government choose to cut health care by almost $4
billion but continued to fund crown corporations and subsidize
businesses to the tune of $7 billion? Where are the priorities of the
Liberal Party?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
provinces across the country are cutting in a number of social
areas. The fact that it is happening in Ontario is not the result of the
reductions in transfers. It is the result of a political decision taken
by that government.
At the same time the province of Alberta is declaring surpluses
and cutting taxes. He cannot say that it is reductions in federal
transfers when Alberta is cutting taxes and declaring surpluses.
The province of Saskatchewan began cutting and closing
hospitals before this government took office. The statements of the
Reform Party are nonsense and they do not bear any kind of
examination.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government cannot avoid the fact that it had a choice
and it chose not to cut subsidies to crown corporations and
businesses and it chose to cut health care.
Thanks to the Liberal government, hospitals across the country
are closing. Thanks to the Liberal government, waiting lists are
longer. Over 170,000 Canadians are on waiting lists, and 45 per
cent of them say they are waiting in pain. That is what the
government's choice to cut health care and to continue to subsidize
corporations and businesses through handouts has meant to
Canadians.
When the government had a choice between corporate handouts
and hospital closures, why did the government choose hospital
closures?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the leader of the Reform Party has not read two documents. The
first document is the series of budgets brought down by this
government. Subsidies to businesses have been cut by 70 per cent.
Crown corporations have been privatized. The Canadian National
Railway has been privatized. Air navigation has been privatized.
The funding to crown corporations has been cut.
The Reform Party does not seem to understand that when we
chose the priorities we put the money back into health care in this
budget. We put the money into research and development. We put
the money into education.
As well, there is a second document which Reform has obviously
not had a chance to take a look at. It happens to be its own fresh
start.
(1430)
Where does the leader of the Reform Party get the nerve to stand
up in this House, having recommended over the last three years that
old age pensions be cut further, that health care be cut further, that
the basic social fabric of the country be cut further and then say that
the first thing Reformers would do on taking office is cut the
Canadian health and social transfer by a further $3.5 billion. That is
what they said. Now stand up and justify it.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
Yesterday, we learned that Serge L'Archer, a Quebec volunteer
with the Canadian Centre for International Studies and
Co-operation, was captured on Friday, in Niger, by Toubou rebels.
When the incident occurred, Mr. L'Archer was with four local
people at an oasis in the Sahara located 1,200 kilometres from
Niamey, the capital of Niger.
Can the minister reassure this House and tell us, without any
doubt, that Mr. L'Archer is safe?
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
officials from my department and from the Canadian International
Development Agency had a telephone conversation with
8731
Mr. L'Archer. I personally had an opportunity yesterday to talk to
Mr. L'Archer's sister. I telephoned her, at her house, to inform her
of the communication between her brother and departmental
officials.
It goes without saying that the Canadian government is
demanding that those who are detaining this Canadian volunteer
release him immediately, so that he can continue the good deeds
and the humanitarian work that he is doing, as are all those who do
this kind of work for the good of humanity.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish
to point out that we did not get any information about whether Mr.
L'Archer is safe.
Therefore, as a supplementary, I ask the minister whether he can
tell us why Toubou rebels are holding Mr. L'Archer hostage and
what demands have been made for his release.
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
at this point we do not know why Mr. L'Archer is being held
hostage.
Of course, there has been some speculation in the media. For
example, some newspapers wrote that the rebels seized Mr.
L'Archer to use him as a bargaining tool in their negotiations with
the country's authorities. These are merely allegations reported by
the media. The hon. member probably read these reports but, at this
point, the Canadian government still has not met personally with
Mr. L'Archer, who is being detained as an hostage. We managed to
talk to him once and we are doing our best to reach him again.
Again, the Canadian government is demanding that those who
are holding Mr. L'Archer hostage release him as soon as possible,
so that he can continue his humanitarian work.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we
could table our parliamentary document to show what the fresh
start really says about health care-$4 billion back into it, by the
way.
The new hospital closings in Ontario are being announced today.
Yet the Liberal government continues to give, for example,
$323,000 to the Canadian wine development program and
$300,000 to friends at the Shawinigan Industrial Centre. It is
straightforward. That money should be going back into hospitals.
Why does the Liberal government continue to waste health care
dollars by subsidizing business and its corporate buddies instead of
putting money into hospitals?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in September 1993 the leader of the third party said that his party
supported user fees or deductibles and would eliminate universality
when it comes to health care.
On March 5, 1996 the leader of the third party was asked point
blank his position on transfer payments. He said: ``There's going to
have to be continued reductions in social transfers''.
We have just seen the fresh start that has been referred to by the
Minister of Finance. In it another $3.5 billion cut is being
advocated by the members of the third party. I wish they would
stop the hypocrisy.
(1435 )
The Speaker: I would much prefer that we stay away from
words like hypocrisy because it triggers reactions that we might not
want to have. I would ask members to refrain from using that word
and being very judicious in their comments.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when the health
minister voted for the Liberal cuts he voted for the closure of the
hospital in Sudbury. He voted for the closure of the Wellesley. He
also voted for a closure of the hospital in Thunder Bay.
Why does the health minister not stand up in the House of
Commons and publicly admit that the cuts he voted for are closing
hospitals across the land and they are in fact a Liberal legacy?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the unholy alliance continues with the Harris government in the
province of Ontario. The hard core reality is that Canada has the
second most expensive health care system in the OECD countries.
As report after report have said, the issue is not one of funding, it is
one of management.
The gall of the hon. member, to stand in his place and to suggest
that we on this side are responsible when it was he and his party
just one year ago that, by way of amendment put forward by the
leader of the third party, was asking for additional cuts to transfer
payments.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Acting Prime Minister.
Early this week, we learned that the Liberal government has
finally listened to reason and announced a six month moratorium
8732
on removals to Algeria; a moratorium that the Bloc Quebecois has
long been calling for.
In recent weeks, the media have been reporting daily on the
extremely serious situation in Zaire. Now that it has finally seen the
light in the case of Algeria, what is the government waiting for to
announce a moratorium on removals to Zaire?
[English]
Ms. Maria Minna (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon.
member knows, the Advisory Committee on Country Conditions
for Removals monitors countries and decides and recommends to
the government what action to take on different countries.
It recommended that there be some assistance with Algeria. That
is why we requested that all removals to Algeria be suspended for a
six-month period until CIC officials are in a position to assess more
accurately the dangers.
Rwanda, Burundi and Afghanistan are three other countries
which are covered in addition to Algeria. At this time Zaire is not a
part of this list but it is being monitored very closely and the
government will make a decision at the appropriate time.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in many
respects, the situation in Zaire is worse than that in Burundi,
Rwanda and Afghanistan. The government seems to be unaware
that there is a civil war in Zaire and that even mercenaries that
plagued Bosnia are apparently there.
How can the parliamentary secretary justify her government's
failure to act and the continuation of removals to Zaire?
[English]
Ms. Maria Minna (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
explained many times that the advisory committee is monitoring
the situation. A decision will be made at the appropriate time if it is
deemed to be necessary. At this time it is not but the situation is
being monitored very closely.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we had a major announcement today about 10 hospital
closures in Ontario. That is a fairly significant matter with respect
to health care.
(1440 )
The health minister seems utterly indifferent to that fact and
seems unable to see any connection between that and a reduction of
$1.2 billion in transfers from the federal government to Ontario.
Does the federal health minister accept any responsibility at all
for the hospital closures that are occurring in Ontario today?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member opposite cannot have it both ways. One day he
stands up and says to the Government of Canada ``you do not have
any role to play with regard to the delivery of health care in this
country, it is a provincial responsibility''. Now he stands in his
place and says to the Government of Canada ``now you have a role
to play in terms of the management of hospitals within provincial
jurisdiction''.
The hon. member has to realize, and perhaps an early course or a
quick course in constitutional law would allow him to understand,
that this a provincial jurisdiction, a management decision which
the province of Ontario had to make and it made that decision.
The question is does the Reform Party support Michael Harris in
his closures of hospitals in the province of Ontario.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, all members in the House know that the federal
government has a responsibility with respect to funding of health
care and the broad framework. It is the funding aspect that we are
talking about.
We are wondering where this minister was in the prebudget
discussions when the government decided to subsidize crown
corporations and businesses to the tune of $7 billion a year and
decided at the same time to cut health care by almost $4 billion.
Where was the minister when that decision was made? Why did
he not stick up for health care in that circumstance, as he obvious
did not?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member opposite just does not get it. Does he support the
Conservative Government of Ontario? In view of the fact that he
has not taken a position, I can only assume that he does support the
closure of hospitals in the province of Ontario. That is a decision
that the Conservative government in the province of Ontario had to
make, and it made the decision. I charge that the leader of the third
party supports the decisions of Michael Harris in the province of
Ontario.
8733
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Bill C-82, which amends the Bank Act, does not address the
issue of globalization of markets and financial institutions. The
government has formed the Baillie committee to look at these
particular issues, but the committee will not be tabling its report
until September 1998. Yet next month, on April 10, the World
Trade Organization begins negotiations on this vital issue in
Geneva.
What position will the government take in these negotiations,
which begin in a few days, because in principle it does not expect
the conclusions of the Baillie committee until 1998?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have taken some
measures recently by introducing the legislation. We announced in
a press release that we will be allowing foreign branching in
Canada. That is something we have been pressured to do by various
countries, including Britain and the United States.
We have answered that question by issuing a press release that
we would be bringing legislation before the public within this year.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I put my question to the Minister of Finance, a senior
minister, so that I would get a real answer. Because when we ask
the secretary of state questions, he skates around, is so forthcoming
that the financial community quakes in its boots. It is dreadful.
So I direct my question to the Minister of Finance, because
billions of dollars are involved. The deregulation of financial
institutions is involved. Can he table in this House, as quickly as
possible in order to reassure the financial sector, the position the
Canadian government intends to take in Geneva next April 10?
(1445)
[English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when the position that
the Government of Canada is taking in Geneva is made public, we
will be happy to table it in the House.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
In 1994 Canada contributed to a $50 billion U.S. international
bailout package for Mexico. My constituents in
Guelph-Wellington were concerned about Mexico's ability to
repay Canada.
As vice-chair of the Canada-Mexico Parliamentary Friendship
Association, my question for the minister is this. Has Mexico
repaid Canada and did the rescue package work?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am delighted to respond to the hon. member who has taken a great
interest in this in her capacity as vice-chair of the Canada-Mexico
parliamentary association.
As she knows, Canada contributed a currency swap facility of up
to $1.5 billion as part of the overall international assistance
package for Mexico in which the United States and the IMF
obviously took a major role.
I am delighted to say that Canada was able to help Mexico when
it ran into trouble with the peso in 1994. Our help has paid off.
Inflation is down and the Mexican economy is growing again.
I am also delighted to say that Mexico has been able to repay the
United States three years ahead of schedule. It is ahead of its
repayment schedule to the IMF. And quite some time ago Mexico
repaid Canada in full.
This is good news for Mexico, good news for Canada and good
news for the world.
* * *
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Finance claims that Canada pension plan premiums are
not a tax on Canadians. His own department has disagreed with him
again.
Another finance study dated March 13, 1996 called CPP
premiums a payroll tax and said that they will reduce jobs. That is
the third finance study at least that we have uncovered that
contradicts its own minister.
Will the minister admit that his CPP tax hikes in fact are killing
jobs, not creating them as he has hinted, and how many?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the advice that I have from the department dated approximately the
same date, within about a month of the date that the member said,
is that if the federal and provincial governments move quickly,
which we have done, and take the steps that we did to improve the
8734
overall financing and management of the fund, very clearly this,
which was not a tax, would not be seen as a tax but as what it really
is, a contribution to people's pensions.
The basic question that Reform members have to answer is this.
Is it their intention to abandon current seniors and those who are
about to retire? Is it their intention to renege on the $500 billion
liability in the Canada pension plan? If it is not, how do they justify
the 13 per cent increase in Canada pension plan contributions that
will result from their plan?
How do they think, in that weird little mind where they do their
own arithmetic, 13 per cent is lower than 9.9 per cent?
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister said that if the government moved quickly on this thing it
would not be seen as a tax. Any Canadian who gets their T-4 in the
mail this week is going to have a really hard time saying they do
not see this as a tax when they see CPP premiums go up by 70 per
cent. It is just ridiculous.
The minister's non-answers in the House day after day on this
topic point to a very serious problem with this government, the
issue of trust. The minister continues to ignore his own department
and denies again and again that these payroll taxes are killing jobs.
Again, how many jobs will be killed by the CPP premium hike?
How could Canadians trust this government with anything, let
alone their cash?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member refers to trust. One should talk about the
obligations that a political party has to lay all the facts on the table
when engaged in an important debate.
(1450 )
In the world of the super RRSP that Reform recommends, who
will protect Canadians who are seriously injured and disabled and
no longer able to work? There is $2 billion in the Canada pension
plan to provide that money, none of it to be found in the super
RRSP.
In the world of the super RRSP who will protect the person who
has all of their money invested in the RRSP when the market
suffers a major downturn just when they are about to retire?
In the world of the super RRSP who will protect the single parent
or the mother who has to take maternity leave or the mother who
decides to take some time off?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
We learned recently that last year, on at least three occasions,
Canadian customs officer stopped individuals trying to bring into
the country hundreds of syringes containing bovine somatotropin.
In view of the fact that a Health Canada inspector has
acknowledged how easy it is for dairy farmers to get this hormone,
what action is the government contemplating to prevent it from
entering Canada in large quantities and eventually finding its way
into the dairy supply system and onto our plates?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman will know,
the responsibility for conducting the necessary scientific reviews in
terms of health and safety matters rests with the department of
health. The department of health is conducting its work and has
been since about 1990. No decision has been taken, meaning that
no notice of compliance has been issued. Accordingly, the laws of
Canada stand in terms of preventing the importation and sale of
rBST in Canada.
The responsibility for watching the border in terms of illegal
importations or potentially illegal importations of course rests with
Canada customs. They duly exercise their responsibilities and carry
out their duties at the border to make sure that products which are
not legal in Canada are not allowed into Canada.
We will always do our very best to enforce the law and maintain
the health and safety of Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister is very optimistic, but this is not what is happening in the
field.
Will the Minister of Agriculture commit to holding a public
debate on the use of bovine somatotropin before it is allowed,
should the study conducted by his department result in the
licensing of this hormone?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member has
suggested is an interesting idea. In fact, a variation of that idea was
put forward a couple of years ago by the House of Commons
Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. The type of
investigation, the type of debate, that the hon. gentleman has
suggested was conducted before the House of Commons Standing
Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food at least two years ago.
The results of all of that are a matter of public record.
8735
[Translation]
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lièvre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. The
minister is to lead an agri-food trade mission in the Asia-Pacific
region.
Could the minister tell us what the objectives of his mission are
and what its impact on Quebec farmers and the agri-food industry
in this province will be?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, 1997 is Canada's year for
Asia-Pacific and my agri-food trade mission to Japan and
Indonesia is part of our ongoing Team Canada effort to build on our
export success in that region of the world. Asia-Pacific is the
fastest growing economic zone on the face of the earth and we have
to be there vigorously and persistently to get our share of the trade
action. That is what this mission is all about. It probably involves
the largest ever Canadian agri-food trade delegation from the
private sector and the provinces.
(1455)
In 1996 we set an all time record of $18.8 billion worth of export
sales in agri-food, and this mission will make that total higher.
* * *
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, let us do a
simple comparison. The MP pension plan will pay out a maximum
of $48,300 a year after 19 years of service, while Canadians have to
work 35 years for a mere pittance of $8,800 a year. Not only that,
but if a senior only has the new seniors benefit and the CPP, the
Minister of Finance will take back half the CPP, which is blatantly
unfair.
Will the Minister of Finance promise this House that he will
introduce legislation now to clawback the MP pension plan on the
same basis as the CPP?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the question of MP compensation is one that has been debated in
this House. There are several different ways to go at it. When the
government brought in its legislation it substantially cut the MP
pension plan which had existed prior to the legislation. It did this in
a number of ways. The cut approximates some 25 per cent to 30 per
cent for certain MPs.
The basic issue is that we decided to go at it that way. Reform
suggested that MP salaries should be doubled. We said no.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
The minister knows that Sharjah Oil Refinery Company in the
United Arab Emirates has applied to the Federal Export
Development Corporation for export financing in order to buy and
dismantle the Ultramar oil refinery in Eastern Passage.
Nova Scotians, in particular those who lost their jobs when
Ultramar shut down its refinery in 1994 in breach of its
commitments, are outraged that the EDC would even consider
helping this foreign company to dismantle its Canadian assets.
Will the minister insist that the EDC respect its legislative
mandate and will he ensure that not one cent of taxpayer money
goes to support this fire sale of the Ultramar refinery?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have sympathy for the position that many
people in Nova Scotia have expressed with respect to the closing of
this refinery. But it was to be closed some three years ago. It is no
longer producing jobs for the people of Nova Scotia.
The package that the Export Development Corporation is
looking into is much broader than that one refinery. It is looking at
a package that will involve some 700 person years of employment
for Canadians and some 150 person years of employment for Nova
Scotians.
Notwithstanding all that, the matter will be examined at the next
board meeting of the Export Development Corporation.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Secretary of State responsible for the Federal
Office of Regional Development in Quebec.
On February 18, amidst great pomp and circumstance, the
Minister of Finance announced the creation of the Canadian
Foundation for Innovation, with the election only months away.
Yet, with less than a month to go until the end of the fiscal year, the
federal government has still not turned over to the Parc
technologique du Québec métropolitain the promised $250,000 in
funding.
The Government of Quebec, as well as the cities of Sainte-Foy
and Quebec, have made their contributions to this complex. What
is the federal government waiting for, and will it commit to paying
over this promised funding, in its entirety, that is $250,000, within
the next few days?
8736
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of
Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Quebec
City is indeed in the process of making an absolutely remarkable
economic turnaround, and the Parc de développement
technologique is one of the tools of development in the forefront
of that turnaround.
(1500)
Nevertheless, the Parc owes is existence today in large part to the
Canadian government, which believed in it and provided funding
right from the start.
Now, concerning the Parc, which belongs to the Government of
Quebec, it is true that its representatives have applied to the
Canadian government, more specifically FORDQ, for funding. We
are analyzing this request at the present time, and a statement of
our position will be forthcoming shortly.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of National Defence.
Two years ago we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the end of
World War II and people from all around the world thanked our
vets for the role they played.
Since then the government has cut the last post fund. It has taken
our vets out of the war museum and put in young people. It has
even taken the poppy making industry away from them and
privatized it.
Can you justify, Mr. Minister, how you are going to close Ste.
Anne-
The Speaker: I ask the hon. member to put her question through
the Chair.
Mrs. Wayne: Would the minister advise the House how the
government can justify the closure of the Ste. Anne Veterans
Hospital, taking 600 vets out of that hospital and putting them out
into the community for there are no other rooms in any other
hospital? Is this part of a $61 million cut to veterans affairs?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the
question from the hon. member. It must be spring; she is back.
As far as the question she has just posed, all the decisions that
are being taken with respect to veterans take into account the
service the hon. member has made reference to. We will try to
make sure veterans who require help, whether it is in hospital or in
other facilities, get the support they need from the Canadian
people.
It is one of the reasons we believe Canadians from coast to coast
to coast still have great confidence in the Canadian forces today,
regardless of all the difficult things we are going through just
because of the service of the veterans. We will continue to take care
of veterans in the future as we have in the past to the very best of
our ability.
* * *
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister for International Co-operation.
All Canadians, and certainly young people in Nepean, are
worried about getting a good education and then facing the
prospect of not getting a good job.
Could the minister let the House know what is going on? What is
he doing to create international opportunities for young Canadians?
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to inform the House that earlier today I announced my
department's international youth internship program which is part
of the government's youth employment strategy.
CIDA, the Canadian International Development Agency, will
allow some 850 young Canadians the opportunity to work in
developing countries in economic transition around the world, in
partnership with the private, public and non-governmental
organizations.
Young people are anxious to be involved. I am glad my
department and our government will be giving them the
opportunity to shape the future of Canada in the world.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask the Leader of the Government in the
House of Commons to tell us what is on the legislative menu for the
coming days.
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I now want to provide the House with the weekly business
statement.
This afternoon we will complete third reading of Bill C-71, the
tobacco bill.
Friday, Monday and Wednesday shall be allotted days.
Next Tuesday we will consider Bill C-66, the labour code
amendments, at third reading; Bill C-67, the competition bill, at
second reading; Bill C-46, Criminal Code amendments, at second
reading; and Bill C-49 regarding administrative tribunals at second
reading.
8737
(1505 )
A week from today it is my intention to call report stage of Bill
C-32, the copyright bill.
* * *
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rose to put
my question to the hon. minister and in his reply I understand he
made the statement that it must be spring because she is back.
My understanding is that it is incorrect for any member to refer
to whether or not another member is in the House, and I ask that he
withdraw.
The Speaker: In the response I could not discern anything about
a member being or not being in the House, and because it was open
to interpretation I did not intervene.
I indicate to all hon. members that statements like that are not
welcome by members of the House. I hope we would refrain from
making them in the future.
_____________________________________________
8737
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion 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.
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in favour of Bill
C-71, the government's tobacco control strategy.
Over the past few months I have been part of a group of
concerned caucus members encouraging and providing support to
the Minister of Health in his efforts to introduce the legislation. I
am pleased to see his efforts have finally been realized.
It is estimated that more than 40,000 Canadians die each year
due to the effects of smoking, mostly due to lung and heart disease.
Twenty-one per cent of all deaths in Canada can be attributed to
smoking. This makes smoking the number one preventable cause
of death and disease in Canada.
We are all well aware of the links between the use of tobacco and
serious disease. We can also assume that as tobacco use continues
to rise among Canadians the death toll will increase accordingly.
It is not only by reducing the demand for tobacco now that we
will be able to reduce the number of Canadians who will die
painful tobacco deaths in the future. This is why the health
minister's new tobacco control strategy is so important.
When the Supreme Court of Canada struck down certain
elements of the tobacco producers control act in 1995 it left the
Canadian government, representatives of the Canadian people,
with too little control over tobacco regulation. Alternative control
measures became a necessity. This is not an entirely new initiative.
The government has been exploring its options ever since the
Supreme Court ruling. Many of my constituents have been critical
expressing their disappointment with how long it has taken for the
government to act. I shared some of their concerns but it was
important that all available options were studied thoroughly. This
time we had to get it right.
Late last year the government released a blueprint on tobacco
control outlining the various options available. Since then we have
received comments from many different Canadians, doctors,
business people, the tobacco industry, consumers, parents and
various credible advocacy groups. These new regulations are a
product of this ongoing study.
I am confident they will arm us for a successful battle to curb
future tobacco use in Canada. Tobacco use is not simply a problem
for the individual who smokes. Tobacco use is costly to every
member of society in a number of ways. It is estimated that in 1991
the cost of smoking in Canada totalled $15 billion in direct health
care costs and lost productivity.
(1510)
Smokers visit the doctor more than non-smokers. They spend
more time in hospitals and they occupy more spaces in long term
health care facilities. In total smoking alone costs the health care
system $3.5 billion.
Smokers are absent from work more than non-smokers. It has
been estimated a smoking employee costs over $3,000 year more to
employ than a non-smoker due to lost days. In addition, lost
productivity from smoke breaks, waiting for smoke breaks and
thinking about smoke breaks cannot be calculated.
Finally, 40,000 smoking related deaths amount to about $10.6
billion in lost revenue for Canada. Compare this figure to the $2.6
billion the federal excise tax and duty on tobacco products
generates. In the end smoking costs the Canadian economy billions
in lost productivity, health care and social assistance to the families
of those who are incapacitated by smoke related diseases. The new
tobacco legislation will see many positive improvements. It will
limit youth access to tobacco products to fight tobacco use before it
becomes an addiction.
I recall visiting the Woodlands Secondary School in my riding as
the local trustee the year we banned student smoking rooms and
8738
smoking areas in schools. I was asked by students why we were
banning smoking rooms for kids and allowing the teachers to
smoke in the staff room. At the time I gave a very facile answer. I
said: ``They are adults and they are old enough to kill themselves if
they choose to''.
The real answer was that they were all addicted. By banning
student smoking areas we were trying to stop the influence of one
smoker over another and stop young people from smoking.
Immediately after the visit to the school, though, we put a
proposal before the board of trustees to ban all smoking on all
school property for adults as well as students, and those rules still
stand today. The interesting part is that teachers have to put on their
coats in the bad weather and walk up and down the street to smoke.
This is not a very glamorous image. The kids are beginning to see
how horrible it is, how addicted the teachers are, and how foolish
they look walking up and down the street.
Almost 30 per cent of 15 to 19 year olds and 15 per cent of 10 to
14 year olds are currently smokers. This is both frightening and
unacceptable. Eighty-five per cent of smokers begin their addiction
before they are 16 years of age when they are most susceptible to
peer pressure and the desire to fit in. The new measures introduced
in the legislation will specifically target youth prohibiting
self-service displays, banning vending machine sales and requiring
photo ID to confirm age.
The new legislation will also limit the marketing and promotion
of tobacco products including restrictions on tobacco advertising,
packaging, sales promotions and promotions through sponsorships.
Promotional materials containing tobacco brand names will be
restricted to publications with primarily adult readerships.
Some will argue that these regulations unfairly hurt the tobacco
industry as well as the events they sponsor. However this concern
must be tempered with the concern for the health of our children.
We cannot afford to sacrifice the health of the country by allowing
another generation of smokers to begin this life threatening habit.
Marketers of tobacco products use a range of lifestyle
advertising to sell their products. They are very appealing methods
to attempt to create a link between tobacco and an attractive
lifestyle. They are particularly fascinating to children and youth.
``Smoke Marlboroughs and be a real man''. ``Smoke Slims and
men will fall in great stacks at your feet''.
The government has no intention of telling tobacco companies
what they can or cannot sponsor. Nor is it prohibiting the
sponsorship of a whole category of events. The government is
simply restricting the extent to which companies can relate tobacco
brand names to activities which convey a desirable, glamorous and
exciting lifestyle.
The new tobacco strategy in Canada will also see increased
health information on tobacco packages, the establishment of an
enforcement mechanism to regulate the chemical contents of
cigarettes, control of the practice of supercharging with addictive
nicotine and the adding of other chemicals to enhance the effects of
nicotine. Altogether I am confident these measures will eventually
have a significant impact on the consumption of tobacco products
in Canada.
This is not the end of government action in this area. In addition
to the actions of the Department of Health other ministries will be
taking part in this initiative. The federal and some provincial
governments will raise their taxes on tobacco products to a
combined rate of $1.40 a carton, together with an extension of the
federal surtax on tobacco manufacturers at the rate of 40 per cent
for three years.
Many of my constituents have been calling for such measures.
They serve the dual purpose of increasing the price of tobacco
products as well as increasing government revenue to pay for some
of the costs associated with tobacco use. This tax increase will be
accompanied by anti-smuggling initiatives to make sure the
increase does not result in the resumption of cigarette smuggling.
In fact, it is estimated that since the government began its
anti-smuggling initiatives in 1994, enforcement has prevented $2
billion worth of illegal products from reaching the streets in
Canada.
(1515)
The final element is also one of the most important. Fifty million
dollars over five years have been committed to enforce this
legislation and to provide health education programs. I can say
from experience that education programs are essential in fighting
tobacco use among young people.
As testimony to that fact, the government is focusing its
initiatives where they most matter, to prevent Canadians,
particularly youths, from becoming addicted to tobacco products.
Retailers will only be marginally affected by the legislation. Retail
displays will be limited and photo ID will be required for purchase
but the government will not regulate who can sell tobacco products
at this time. This is very reasonable legislation.
I am pleased to have had the opportunity speak on behalf of this
long awaited legislation. I am particularly proud of the Minister of
Health, the Prime Minister and the parliamentary secretary for their
diligence in the face of so much organized and well-funded
opposition.
Tobacco use in Canada is a health problem. We must ensure that
the health of the country is not lost to this addictive product. We
already have one of the best records in the world and we must strive
to make it even better.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, as I listened to the hon. member's comments about Bill
C-71, I was reminded of travelling and talking with a number of
constitu-
8739
ents when I was last back in my riding about the legislation and
other issues.
One thing was brought home to me by small business people
who, among other things, sell tobacco to consumers. They were
wondering why it is not illegal for young people to possess and
smoke tobacco. If the government is as concerned as it says about
the health risks posed by cigarettes and tobacco to young
Canadians, why would the government not make it illegal for
minors to possess and smoke cigarettes?
If it is looked at in the context of alcohol, for example, the shops,
bars or liquor vendors who sell product to minors are held
accountable for that action and can be charged and fined, or
perhaps lose their licence or permit. In the case of cigarettes
vendors can be fined, and rightly so, if they sell this hazardous
product to young people. But it is not illegal for young people to
smoke.
I wonder why the hon. member has not added her voice to those
who are calling for that type of action by the government.
Mrs. Parrish: Mr. Speaker, I am continually amazed and
appalled at the desire of members of the Reform Party to
criminalize as many people as they can. Their net is now including
14-year-olds which I find appalling.
It is illegal to sell cigarettes to kids. We should be going after the
adults who are doing this and making a profit off the health of
young people. But to collect a bunch of 14-year-olds, charge them,
take them to court and turn them into criminals is not the idea of the
government or any other government.
Again, I find it appalling that the Reform's law and order goes
beyond all limits when it wants to see 14-year-olds arrested.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is the
inconsistency that bothers us on this side of the House. The
government is quite willing to charge 14-year-olds for the
possession of liquor. It is going to charge and convict store owners
for selling to 14-year-olds or 16-year-olds inadvertently, but it is
not going to charge 14-year-olds for possession.
(1520)
Dealing with tobacco, this situation is being advocated by our
hon. colleague who just responded to my colleague's question. On
the other hand the government is charging 14-year-olds and anyone
under age for the possession of liquor. Where is the consistency in
the Liberal policy? There is none.
Mrs. Parrish: Mr. Speaker, we are being very consistent. The
consistent desire of the Liberal government is to increase health
protection for the youngest child to the oldest senior. We are
consistent in wanting to charge adults who lure children into
smoking. We are consistent in that the penalties are for the crass
people who purposely sell to children without asking for ID. We are
very consistent in being very concerned about their health.
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with great
amazement and chagrin that I rise to take part in the debate today.
When I was 13 years old I took up smoking. Yes, both my
parents smoked, as did most adults I knew. It was 1961 and in spite
of the U.S. surgeon general's report some eight years earlier,
smoking was still the norm.
Five years ago, after numerous tries, I finally managed to quit. I
thank God daily that I did so. During those pretty awful weeks that
followed my last cigarette, I brooded considerably about why I had
taken that first step as a teenager. The answer, actually, was fairly
easy. It was considered grown up. It was considered sophisticated.
It was considered cool, an adjective or attribute as desirable in
1961 as it is in 1997.
I do not know why we have not succeeded in killing this image
of smoking for our young. I suspect the reasons are complex and
manifold, but I do know that the advertising of cigarettes is part of
the problem.
I truly cannot believe the commentators, the pundits and the
Bloc Quebecois who somehow pretend to believe that the
advertising of tobacco is unrelated to increased smoking by young
people. I actually heard one person, no doubt just off the shuttle
from Mars, say that young people's smoking was unrelated to
advertising, but particularly unrelated to arts advertising. That
makes me sick.
Smoking cigarettes kills people. It is not a theory, it is a fact.
Smoking is a cause of lung cancer. It is a cause of emphysema. It
exacerbates asthma. It is a cause of heart disease and it is a cause of
strokes. Recent research has made strong links to the incidence of
breast cancer being caused by smoking or exacerbated by smoking.
Smoking is dangerous. It is deadly. Take any smoker in the
country and beleaguered as he or she may be by being forced to
congregate in the cold or in small ghettoizing rooms, lectured
constantly by the medical profession and by the converted like me,
I will bet that the most militant smoker does not want his or her
child to take up this habit. It is not because of any social stigma. It
is not because of the cold porches. It is not even because your
clothes and your hair stink. It is because no loving parent wants a
child to place his life in jeopardy.
Let us look at the issue of advertising and consumption-the
consumption of any good-and let us make it really simple.
Companies that want to sell their goods spend massive dollars on
advertising. Why do companies spend massive dollars on
advertising? To sell their product and to make a profit.
8740
We all know that is true, but for some reason, as I noted with
surprise yesterday, the editorial writers of the Globe and Mail
were having a problem with this. I hope what I have said today
may be of some help to them.
Just in case there is any further doubt, people do not buy
cigarettes for decoration or bookends or ballast. They buy
cigarettes to smoke them and smoking them makes them sick. The
difficulty here of course-I do not minimize it-is the question of
arts funding. Let me state, unequivocally, my long time devotion to
the enhancement of Canadian cultural endeavours.
(1525)
In my previous life I was an actor, first in amateur and later in
professional productions. I have served on the boards of theatres,
dance, music and other arts organizations. I have maintained an
active interest in the visual and performing arts in my city, my
province, my region and my country. This is something that is very
close to my heart.
I want more and better funding for artists and artistic
endeavours, from Halifax's wonderful Shakespeare in the Park to
CBC Radio and I will work my fingers to the bone to help find it.
But I will not, I cannot, say that money earned from a dangerous
product is okay.
Tobacco must not be the saviour of the arts in Canada. There are
other sources and we must each work together, all of us on all sides
of this House, and with the people in our constituencies to find
them.
I know from personal experience what it is like to sit around a
board room table late at night in the face of government cuts, in the
face of private sector cuts, desperately searching with other
devotees and volunteers for alternative sources of funding;
scrambling, scrimping and scraping to maintain this festival or this
theatre company. I know.
I also know what it is like to watch a friend walk around carrying
a portable oxygen tent, unable to walk up stairs, unable to pick up a
grandchild because of the emphysema that is choking off his life.
I have spoken many times to hard pressed artists, producers and
artistic directors about this terrible dichotomy that we face, but not
one of them suggested that tobacco was benign. The artistic
community is in a terrible position. I understand the position of the
people in Quebec and across the country who are terrified for their
jobs. However, this issue goes beyond that. It is a question of right
and wrong.
I do not blame people for fighting but I say to them that while we
do not have all or even some of the answers with regard to funding
in these days of financial restraint and cutback, the answer is not to
turn a blind eye to a hazardous, dangerous product.
The legislation gives us and them two years. I pledge my
strongest efforts, and I know millions of other Canadians will as
well. We cannot afford the status quo. I cannot in all conscience
indulge my passion for the theatre, for the ballet, for the music I
love, if always in the back of my mind I see teenagers trying to be
cool, trying to be grown up in a corner of the schoolyard, beginning
an addiction that will lead them ultimately to an early grave.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to address a question to the member for Halifax. She said that
this bill is a question of right or wrong. Could she elaborate on
whether it is not also a question of individual rights and
responsibilities?
We are here as politicians assuming our responsibility of trying
to do what is in the greater interest of a greater number of people.
The target of this bill is youth and trying to prevent them from
becoming addicted to this habit.
In so doing, how far does one go before ending up stepping on
individual rights, freedom of choice, freedom to choose to smoke
or not to smoke, to drink or not to drink? These are, after all, legal
products. How far does one go before ending up having to conclude
that, if it is so bad, if all the statistics being put out today are true,
why is smoking legal?
I submit that it is also individual rights and responsibilities. We
are trying to address our responsibilities here. I am supportive of
the bill because of its target. It is just a question of the other
element.
I see what is happening in our society. Legislatures are trying to
be so good at looking after all the problems that they end up going
too far, intruding into people's lives and tramping on their rights.
(1530 )
What if we sort of twisted this and said maybe parents are
responsible for their kids a little as well? Would she elaborate on
the issue of rights and responsibilities?
Ms. Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for
Calgary Centre for his question because I know that it was heartfelt
and well meant. I am glad he asked it.
I do not know the exact dates because I am far too young, but
there may be others in this House who do, but many years ago when
we had prohibition in this country, I had a great uncle by marriage
who made a great deal of money from prohibition because he
owned a number of boats that sailed from St. Pierre de Michelon
down through the St. Lawrence before the seaway right into
Chicago. He was a rum runner. He sat at a desk in an office in Cape
Breton and made a whole lot of money being a rum runner because,
as we learned then, one cannot prohibit by law certain things. There
are certain laws that cannot be enforced.
8741
This legislation that I am advocating here does not prohibit the
sale or the purchase of cigarettes. That would not work. I wish
it would and I wish it could, but it does not.
What does work, however, is chipping away at the idea of young
people that smoking is somehow a good thing. I go back to the
words I used in my original speech, that it is cool, sophisticated and
grown-up. The hon. member knows, I know and all of us in this
House know that what smoking leads to ultimately is lung cancer or
emphysema or asthma or heart disease, all of these terrible things
that we want our children to avoid as much as possible.
Consequently, we are not going into the area of restricting rights.
People still have the right to go, if I may use the word, to hell in
their own direction and in their own way. They can walk into any
store if they are of age in the relevant province and buy cigarettes. I
wish they would not and I wish they could not but I know, as the
hon. member knows, we cannot prevent that by legislation.
However, we can and we have a duty and an absolute
responsibility to do whatever we can not to make it look as if it is
either benign or a good thing that people should smoke.
Most particularly in this debate, when we tie cigarette
advertising to one of the most glorious manifestations of our joint
culture and society, that of the performing arts, it absolutely
inflames my heart that we have to do this, that we have to have this
kind of a debate. It is wrong that we let a product that hurts people
and that can hurt our children be one that puts us into a debate on
the future of our magnificent artistic endeavours.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will
share my speaking time with the hon. member for Mercier.
First of all, I want to say that as a member of the Bloc Quebecois,
this is my proudest moment in the past three or four years. Last
time, in 1993, we campaigned under the slogan: ``On se donne le
vrai pouvoir''. I remember the taunts of our opponents across the
way who said: ``Listen the real power is the government, not the
opposition''.
Yesterday we clearly saw how that power could be exercised at
the expense of Quebec. Yesterday, the power of Liberals was a
sorry sight. It was pitiful how Liberal members from Quebec who
tried to get out of a tight spot, extend moratoriums and find money
elsewhere, were finally crushed under the weight of their caucus. If
that is the real power of the Liberals, we can do without, and the
people of Quebec, I am sure, will re-elect those who defend their
interests.
(1535)
I am fed up with the sentimental rhetoric dished up by members
opposite who tell us: ``Listen to these people who can no longer
bend over to pick up their grandchildren without falling down,
because they smoked too much''.
At second reading, we agreed with the health objectives of the
bill, but now at third reading, when we look at the way
sponsorships have been cut, $60 million in Canada, which includes
$30 million in Quebec, there is a major problem. There is no
compensation.
We heard the Minister of Health say that perhaps the banks could
take up the slack. His colleague at Heritage Canada told us there
was no way the government could take over the tobacco
companies' sponsorships because it would cost far too much.
So the government is getting no for an answer everywhere. The
only way was to leave the sponsorships as they are now. There are
statistics. The government brandishes its statistics, and we have
ours. As the Leader of the Opposition explained yesterday, when
young people go to watch the Tennis Canada championships in
Montreal, the Players open, will they say on the way home: ``I am
going to buy a carton of Players?'' They are more likely to say they
wished they were able to play tennis at that level.
It has not been clearly proven to my satisfaction that advertising
automatically creates a need to smoke and automatically induces
young people to smoke. I have not seen that happen so far.
I also want to condemn the procedure for getting this bill through
the House. We were pushed to adopt this bill very quickly. The
government took a very cavalier attitude, which will prevent us
from having a debate on the substance of the bill, and even if we
have a chance to do so this afternoon, we would have needed far
more time to consider how to deal with the health issues and at the
same time protect sponsorships. But the government is dead set on
having its way. There will be a political price to pay for the
government, especially in Quebec.
What sets Quebec apart is its series of festivals. It is something
we see everywhere in Quebec, especially in the Montreal area, the
French speaking capital of America, where there are many
festivals, and their impact is considerable.
The elimination of sponsorship hits the festivals broadside. I will
give you a few figures: the Just for Laughs festival, $1 million or
10 per cent of its budget; the Montreal and Trois-Rivières Grand
Prix and the Montreal film festival, $1.5 million or 16 per cent; the
Montreal jazz festival, $1 million or 71.4 per cent; the Benson and
Hedges International, the fireworks festival that lights up Montreal
once a year; the Players tennis open, half a million dollars or 11 per
cent; and the Quebec City summer festival.
8742
It does not take a rocket scientist to understand that all the
festivals will be hit hard. They are being threatened by the bill
before us.
La Presse mentioned a survey taken on September 6 that
revealed that 81 per cent of young people would not take up
smoking just because they realized an event had been sponsored.
Young people are going to start smoking for all sorts of reasons, but
certainly not because of sponsorship. It is a matter of education.
Rather than take this approach and set up anti-smoking campaigns,
the government has gone on a witch hunt. And, as I said before, the
festivals in Quebec and in the greater Montreal area will bear the
brunt.
Sixty-eight per cent of these people opposed the prohibition of
sponsorships, because they could see quite simply that this was not
the way to resolve the problem of smoking among young people, or
adults, for that matter.
I would like to bring a new argument to the debate: the impact on
other festivals. In my region, in the riding of Saint-Jean, we have
the Haut-Richelieu hot air balloon festival, the most beautiful of
the balloon festivals in Quebec and Canada. My colleague says
there are others. There is one in the Outaouais as well, but
unfortunately, it lacks the prestige and grandeur of the Festival de
montgolfières du Haut-Richelieu. The festival receives $1.5
million in sponsorship. I might perhaps give you some figures
before I present my argument.
(1540)
The number of people going to the hot air balloon festival has
substantially risen since its beginning. Attendance was 130,000 in
1993, 160,000 in 1994, 190,000 in 1995, and 250,000 in 1996. Just
as the festival is becoming big enough to attract this type of
sponsorship, this bill is pulling the rug out from underneath it. The
bill says that, from now on, sponsorships will not be allowed,
therefore the festival will never be able to get that kind of
sponsorship.
Worse than that. This bill will affect not only the hot air balloon
festival, but all the other, smaller festivals in Quebec. With $30
million less in sponsorships in Quebec, major festivals are going to
turn to the sponsors of smaller festivals, such as the hot air balloon
festival in the Haut-Richelieu region, which generates $8 million in
economic benefits. This bill has an adverse impact on
sponsorships.
This bill is not about health. Personally, I think it is true that in
Canada smoking kills many people, the young and the not so
young. However, the government should not go as far as
prohibiting sponsorships. This threatens not only the major
festivals that I mentioned earlier, but also the one in my region.
With economic spinoffs of $8 million and a sponsorship of $1.5
million for the festival in my riding, we cannot afford to be told, in
two years from now: ``We were thinking of sponsoring your event,
but the World Film Festival approached us and we will have to
transfer our sponsorship''. Sponsors always choose the most
prestigious events, and this is understandable.
The big festivals are not the only ones to be affected. I invite the
minister, the Prime Minister and all of my colleagues to the hot air
balloon festival. I would be very pleased if the Minister of Health
did come next summer. Not only will I promise him a ride in a hot
air balloon, but we will certainly have a welcoming committee
explain to him why the bill is unacceptable and how it is a threat to
festivals that are the pride of the regions.
My colleague from Trois-Rivières showed me a message from
one of his constituents who is extremely proud of the festival there.
She could see that the Trois-Rivières Grand Prix was in jeopardy.
It is the same thing everywhere. In Saint-Jean, we are worried.
We ask the minister to back down. If he does not, I hope he will
come to Saint-Jean this summer. We will give him an interesting
welcome. We will send him up in a hot air balloon and hope that he
never comes down.
[English]
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the
member opposite and other members of the official opposition.
The member said he is tired of listening to the demagoguery of
the government members who support Bill C-71. He contends that
there is no link between sponsorship promotion and tobacco
consumption. It is his party's only argument to justify its position
on Bill C-71.
How does the member opposite respond the mounds of studies
and information, the substantial evidence that establishes that there
is in fact a link between sponsorship promotion and the
consumption of tobacco?
The National Cancer Institute of Canada stated: ``There is
substantial evidence that young people are aware of and respond to
cigarette advertising. Advertisements present images that appeal to
the young and are seen and remembered by them. Images are used
in tobacco marketing rather than information to portray the
attractiveness of the function of smoking. The human models and
cartoon like characters used in advertising convey independence
and strong self-concepts, helpfulness, social acceptance, adventure
seeking, attractive role models and youth activities, thus appealing
to youth and tapping into area relevant to important development
tasks''.
(1545)
What about the information that we receive from the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration that says: ``Evidence from social,
psychological and marketing research shows image based
advertising such as employed by the cigarette and smokeless
tobacco industry is particularly effective with young people and
that the information
8743
conveyed by imagery is likely to be more significant to young
people than information conveyed by other means in advertising''.
The American Psychological Association provided expert
opinion with specific citation to numerous studies to show that
tobacco advertising plays directly to the factors that are central to
children and adolescence and thus plays an important role in their
decision to use tobacco. How does the hon. member refute this
evidence?
I would be glad for the hon. member's perusal to table this
evidence that I am speaking of. The World Health Organization-
The Speaker: I know the member inadvertently put some papers
on his desk and he is going to take them off.
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Speaker, I was just indicating that I would like
to table these documents and I was getting them ready for the page.
The World Health Organization states: ``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'', maybe like
balloons-
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member. I know that he wants to
get into it but I am going to give the other member a chance to
answer.
[Translation]
Mr. Bachand: Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to
answer. I was wondering if I had enough time left to do so.
Look, this is not the Canada Cancer Foundation. I, for one, am
interested in finding out how people start smoking. In my case, it
happened in my backyard. Somebody who was already a smoker
came and asked me if I wanted to try. I said yes. There was no
psychological trigger, as the North American psychologists
association would say. It was not because I saw this brand of
cigarettes during the Player's International Tennis Championships
or the hot air balloon festival. It had nothing to do with that. We did
not care what brand it was. I was not coerced into smoking by
tobacco sponsorship.
I thank God that I choked on the first puff and never tried again.
This has nothing to do with seeing one brand or another on a
billboard. As a matter of fact, some studies prove the reverse of
what my colleague said and indicate that it may influence smokers
to switch brands.
Those who start smoking have quite a choice of brands: Player's,
Du Maurier, Benson & Hedges. Does this mean that young people
who go and see fireworks will smoke Benson & Hedges, and those
who watch tennis will smoke Player's? That is not the way it
works. I beg to differ with my colleague and think that the
government has gone too far in banning sponsorship. For us it is a
health issue, but is also a sponsorship issue.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
colleague, the member for Saint-Jean, is generous enough to share
his 20 minutes with me.
What I feel like saying about this provision on sponsorships is
that the government missed its mark. We agree, the Bloc has
always agreed with the purpose, the principle of the bill which is
aimed at curbing tobacco use. But as regards these provisions on
sponsorships, it seems there is no correlation between them and the
stated purpose of the bill or the arguments offered.
(1550)
Especially since Montreal's cultural and sports events are
directly affected, the city having already been dealt a serious blow
at the social and economic level as a result of the policies
implemented by this government since it came into office. I would
be remiss if I did not review them with you. Montrealers are angry
because this is like the last straw. This measure would have a
devastating impact on Montreal, not only economically but also
culturally and socially.
Here is the list. As a result of this government's drastic cuts to
unemployment insurance in its very first budget, Montreal was hit
with $290 million in cuts in 1995. With the new employment
insurance scheme, Montreal will lose another $125 million this
year. Benefits will be reduced by $415 million in the Montreal area
alone, and by more than $800 million for all of Quebec.
Who is affected by Bill C-29 aimed at banning the additive
MMT in gasoline? The Montreal refineries. Who will be affected
by the ports' user fees? All the ports on the St. Lawrence River,
which will have to pay more than other ports on the Atlantic and
the west coast for ice-breaking and dredging. Montreal will be
particularly hard hit.
There are as many poor people in Montreal as there are in all the
Atlantic provinces combined. Where is our Hibernia project, in
which the federal government invested over $2 billion? Where is
our bridge to the mainland, our Confederation bridge, built at a cost
of $800 million for the 130,000 residents of Prince Edward Island?
Did the federal government build the proposed fast train link
between Dorval and Mirabel? No. That was too much money for
Montreal.
Given this situation, the government, which has been in power
since 1993, comes up, on the eve of the Grand Prix, with provisions
that put it in jeopardy. You have seen the outcry from the people
involved when that decision was made in Ottawa, in this House,
8744
where the Prime Minister shed a tear for the young Quebecers who
smoke more and earlier.
Does he know that there is a strong link between poverty and
smoking and does he realize that his government is contributing to
the impoverishment of Montreal and Quebec? Will the bill ban
clips by their favourite performers if they are smokers? No. Does it
prohibit models? And it could not do so anyway. We know that
Montreal and Quebec, as well as regions with a high
unemployment rate, are those that bore the brunt of the deficit
reduction, whether through employment insurance cuts or the
Canadian social transfer.
There is a relationship between poverty and smoking. This is
true for young people and also for people in other age groups. Yes,
Montreal is poor. And it is humiliating to have to come here, to
Ottawa, to plead or to be angry with a government that does not
care about the plight of people in Montreal, which has an
unemployment rate of 15 per cent. Montreal is one of the poorest
major cities in Canada and, when the governments stopped funding
these cultural and sporting events, we managed to get some
sponsorships and to keep alive and vibrant. Now these are being cut
under the pretext that young people will start smoking.
I do not want young people to start smoking, but I do not want
them to be used as a pretext for a policy that says it is aimed at
protecting health, but that, in fact, is an attack on the economy of
Montreal and Quebec.
(1555)
I repeat, it is humiliating to have a decision imposed on us, as the
president of the Montreal chamber of commerce said, without any
consideration of its immediate impact. The government cannot say
that it does not see the economic impact this will have on Montreal.
If the government had been concerned with not creating such an
impact on the economy, it would have tried to find some solutions.
All the suggestions that were made by the official opposition have
been rejected, swept aside and abandoned. No one will convince
me that the desired effect is not to harm the economy of Montreal.
No one will be able to convince me of that. There is no urgent need
for these harmful provisions.
Young people do not start smoking because of advertising, but
because of peer pressure.
Sponsorships are being targeted, singled out. The leader of the
official opposition asked a very simple question, which is worth
repeating. He said: ``What will a young person coming back from a
tennis tournament ask his parents for: a tennis racket or a pack of
cigarettes?'' He will ask for a tennis racket and, on top of that, he
will be aware of the fact that, if he wants to be any good at a sport
that requires so much speed, he had better not smoke. Young people
are aware of that.
We feel the joke is on us, a joke of monumental proportions,
which is not funny at all, because health is no joking matter. We do
agree with the health related principles, but not with the means. We
are being forced to choose between what would be a health related
objective and events that help young people get by in a context
where jobs are scarce, cultural events that attract tourists and
promote a degree of economic development without which
Montreal would do ever more poorly than it is doing.
Montreal is not doing as well as it should. It used to be the
metropolis of Canada, it is the metropolis of Quebec, but it has
suffered terribly from this unresolved issue between Quebec and
Canada. No metropolis can develop properly without a State with
full powers behind it. Montreal does not have this State with full
powers behind it and both Montreal and Quebec as a whole are
badly off because of it.
This bill is a hit and miss bill. What is hits is Montreal and
cultural and sporting events in Quebec, and it hits them hard.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians would want to ask the member if she really believes
what she says. Does she really believe that advertising does not
have any influence whatsoever on the decision of anyone to use a
product? Why would the tobacco companies spend $60 million a
year?
She also said that children smoke because other kids smoke.
That is a total copout. It is basically saying that is the way it is and
that is the way it is always going to be so let us not do anything
about. She offers no solutions. She asks why the bill attacks the
economy of Montreal. If she is concerned about the economy, and I
think she should be, she should be concerned about the 40,000
Canadians who will not be part of the economy next year because
they will have died as a result of tobacco. They will not have those
jobs. They will not be productive contributors to society for the rest
of their lives. That is the part of the economy the member has not
recognized as important. The jobs are no good to children when
they are dead.
(1600)
I have a very simple question for the member. If she cannot
answer a simple question there is no point in posing others.
Just for Laughs is one Montreal festivals that has said: ``Isn't this
awful? If we lose our sponsorship we will be gone and all the jobs
will be gone''. The Montreal Just for Laughs comedy festival
receives 10 per cent of its revenue from tobacco. Will the member
tell the House today if she honestly believes that Just for Laughs
will totally disappear from the face of the earth if the 10 per cent
from tobacco is not included in sponsorships?
8745
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I said that I agreed with the
objective to fight tobacco use. This fight should, first and foremost,
include prevention, and it does.
However, what does this government, which is supposed to be
concerned about these 40,000 deaths, propose? A measly $10
million, while the Canada Information Office and others are getting
about $67 million per year. If this government really cared about
Montreal's economic situation, it would have found ways to make
up for this loss.
Needless to say, I care about the health aspect, but I also react to
demagoguery and to the fact that young people who are poor smoke
more than others. It is not a matter of choosing between poverty
and health.
We have to find a successful approach, and such an approach
must be based on prevention. Montreal must continue to hold its
events. To say that this bill is necessary to avoid 40,000 deaths is
simply ridiculous. A solution, a real solution must be found. Until
then, I will keep thinking that the goal pursued is really to hurt
Montreal and the Province of Quebec.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want
to congratulate the hon. member for Mercier for her very eloquent
and sensitive testimony on the harmful effects of this legislation on
Montreal's economy.
Do I really have only one minute left?
The Speaker: More like 17 seconds.
Mr. Rocheleau: I will rise again later, because there is
something interesting I am eager to tell you. Again, I congratulate
the hon. member.
Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I know what the hon. member for
Trois-Rivières wants to tell us. It concerns a letter from one of his
constituents, who worked for the Trois-Rivières festival. That
person is a non-smoker, but she fully supports our position,
because, as she puts it: ``The festival provides me with a job and I
do not understand why the Liberal government is going after this''.
[English]
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for
Scarborough-Rouge River.
Throughout the debate on Bill C-71 we have heard compelling
evidence about the dangers of smoking. Tobacco use puts the lives
of millions of Canadians at risk every day. Canadians are
increasingly aware of the dangers of tobacco use. Consensus has
been building for some time on the need for strong, well
co-ordinated action to meet this public health challenge head on.
(1605)
The announcement by the Minister of Health of a comprehensive
federal strategy to help protect Canadians from the harmful effects
of tobacco is a step to be applauded and supported by all members
of the House.
Bill C-71 is an indispensable tool for regulating tobacco
advertising and promotion and ultimately for reducing tobacco
consumption.
We must recognize that the legislation has as its ultimate goal
public health. It is our responsibility as members of Parliament to
ensure that it receives quick passage through the House.
This debate has given us a clear picture of the devastating effects
of tobacco use on the current generation of Canadian smokers. Just
as alarming, however, is the potential devastation awaiting a whole
new generation of young Canadians who are taking up smoking at
an alarming rate.
I will read a letter I recently received from a grade 5-6 class at L.
E. Shaw School in Avonport in my riding of Annapolis
Valley-Hants. The teacher wrote:
The grade 5-6 students are very concerned about the effects of smoking on our
bodies and the environment. We have also looked at the advertising and the
influence it has on people, especially young people.
In their letter they urge me not to support any measures that
loosen the restrictions on advertising tobacco products.
As a parliamentarian I have a responsibility to protect their
rights and their health. I am pleased to report that the measures
included in the bill are an appropriate response to the health threat
that smoking poses for the young people of Canada.
Let us begin with what we know about youth and smoking. One
in three Canadians smoke. Half of them will ultimately die
prematurely of tobacco related diseases. In my own family I have
certainly seen this devastation. Youth are the most tragic casualties
of tobacco use and addiction. Youth are the most vulnerable to
tobacco promotion.
That is why the government's priority in developing the
legislation and the overall strategy has been young people. I think
we can all agree that young people are certainly the future of the
country. We must invest in them by protecting them and by
ensuring the safest and healthiest environment for their growth and
development.
The statistics, however, show that we have our work cut out for
us. Twenty-nine per cent of 15 to 19 year olds and 14 per cent of 10
to 14 year olds are current smokers. Smoking among teens 15 to 19
years of age has increased 25 per cent since 1991. According to the
1994 youth smoking survey, 260,000 kids between the ages of 10
and 19 years were beginner smokers that year.
8746
Figures like these are being replicated in all other countries.
These statistics have promoted the World Health Organization to
classify youth smoking as a global pediatric epidemic.
What is striking about the evidence on youth smoking is the
knowledge among youth about the effects of tobacco use. More
than 90 per cent of people between the ages of 10 and 19 believe
that tobacco is addictive. A similar percentage believe tobacco
smoke in the environment can be harmful to the health of people
who do not smoke. I certainly I can attest to that. Despite being
clearly aware of the hazards over a quarter of the young people still
smoke.
Research indicates a strong association between the smoking
habits of youth and the number of friends who smoke. The most
common reason cited for starting to smoke is the influence of
friends or peer pressure. Eighty-five per cent of all smokers
surveyed say they began smoking before they were 16 years of age.
A critical time for the smoking decision process appears to be
between the ages of 12 and 14. It is no surprise the tobacco
companies know this statistic. They need new customers to replace
the legions of those who are dying every year from smoking.
(1610)
Currently the tobacco industry has a voluntary code that
prohibits advertising to young people or using advertising with
young people pictured in it. However the industry has breached this
code time and time again.
The tobacco industry says it does not advertising to encourage
youth to take up smoking. It claims it is only to encourage older,
established smokers to switch their brands. Young people like those
in our gallery are sophisticated enough to understand the point of
tobacco company marketing tools.
Some 85 per cent of young smokers and 83 per cent to
non-smokers agree that advertising for events sponsored by
tobacco companies is a means to directly advertise cigarette
brands. I am sure the group of young people in our gallery would
agree with those statements.
Despite the claims of the tobacco industry it is clear people in
young age smoking groups are more likely to start smoking and to
switch brands than older people. Otherwise, why would the tobacco
companies support events that are so popular with young people,
from sporting events to popular music festivals, to entertainment
events? Young people tell us that the use of brand names in tobacco
sponsored events acts as an advertisement for tobacco products and
smoking as well as for the specific event.
Bill C-71 will respond to the realities and to the tobacco
industry's indirect focus on youth. Bill C-71 will restrict the
association of tobacco brand names with sponsored events while
still allowing tobacco companies to sponsor whatever events they
please. The legislation will also control the extent to which young
people are exposed to tobacco advertisements and promotions by
banning broadcast, billboard, bus panel ads, and counter top
displays in stores. In addition, it prohibits the use of tobacco brand
names or logos on non-tobacco products that are youth oriented or
have lifestyle connotations such as baseball caps and knapsacks.
The legislation will also reduce youth access by banning vending
machines and mail out sales and by requiring photo identification
to confirm minimum age.
These measures and others in the bill are designed to protect the
health of Canadians, particularly young Canadians. Collectively
they form a balanced and reasonable piece of legislation that
addresses the broad range of factors which contribute to a young
person's decision to smoke.
Since the bill was introduced the Minister of Health has
consistently reiterated that he would listen to the views expressed
in consultation on the bill. The minister has subsequently tabled a
series of amendments that demonstrates our government is giving
serious consideration to what all parties have to say on this
complex issue.
The proposed amendments are straightforward and fall into three
categories. Six of the proposals are technical amendments. They
simply bring greater precision to some of the terms used in Bill
C-71. Four amendments respond to requests by representatives of
the tobacco industry that the government clarify its intentions. We
have done so in the interests of providing greater certainty to
affected parties.
The final amendment responds to the requests made by the arts,
cultural and sports community and groups. Some groups expressed
concern over what might happen if subclauses 24(2) and (3) took
effective immediately upon proclamation. These subclauses
restrict the display of tobacco related brand elements and the
placement of permanent materials.
The government recognizes that many sponsored events bring
important economic benefits to communities. We have therefore
agreed to a one-year or two summers implementation period for
this portion of the bill only to give affected groups more time to
adjust their promotional strategies.
(1615 )
We have introduced these reasonable amendments in a way that
will not compromise the integrity of the bill or the government's
health objectives. As I said earlier, this bill is about protecting the
health of Canadians, particularly young Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to be able to rise during the question and comment
period following the speech made by the hon. member for
Annapolis Valley-Hants, who stressed the so-called pernicious
8747
effects of sponsorship on our youth and on their decision to take up
smoking.
I just received this morning a very nice letter from a resident of
my riding who is 18 years old, whom I have never met, whom I do
not know and who took the time to e-mail me a letter at 8.45 this
morning.
Let me read you the letter sent to me by Lisa-Marie Dupont from
Trois-Rivières:
``Mr. Rocheleau,
I saw the position you have taken on the issue of tobacco
company sponsorship and I had to tell you that I support it. I am an
18-year-old woman who has lived all her life in Trois-Rivières,
which hosts the annual Player's Grand Prix, and I have never
smoked a cigarette in my whole life. Moreover, I have volunteered
to work in the press room these last two years, an experience which
will be very useful when I have to find a good job. It is nonsense to
think health depends on sponsorship; the decision to take up
smoking or not, especially among the young, is more a matter of
education and guidance.
For a city like Trois-Rivières, this kind of event is very
important. Tourism picks up considerably, the whole city comes
alive with pride and hundreds of volunteers enthusiastically give a
helping hand to make this event successful.
Such events give national and international visibility to cities. Is
that not a sure advantage in this era of market globalization?
Please do not succumb to the pressures and keep defending your
point of view. It is very important to our region.
Signed, Lisa-Marie Dupont''.
There is one sentence that I would like to read again for my
colleague: ``It is nonsense to think health depends on sponsorship;
the decision to take up smoking or not, especially among the
young, is more a matter of education and guidance''. This is quite a
change from the shortsightedness, the partisanship and the kind of
intolerance shown by government members and also by the health
workers lobby-because it is indeed a lobby. I think such a
testimony reflects good faith, intelligence, wisdom, balance and
common sense.
Common sense is exactly what is lacking in this bill, 80 per cent
of which we agree with. The members opposite seem to forget that.
What we are opposed to are the sponsorship provisions in this bill,
which will have a devastating effect on economic development.
If smoking kills-and I would like my colleague to comment on
this-can the lack of jobs, as has been demonstrated, have the same
effect? Is it possible that someone who is unemployed will have a
tendency to smoke more, which will also contribute to killing him
or her? So the public interest will not be served by these
shortsighted policies that create more problems than they solve. I
would like my colleague to comment on this.
[English]
Mr. Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his
question. First, let me applaud the young person who did not start
smoking.
If members remember my speech, we are talking about a health
issue here, not one of economics and not one of one-letter lines that
indicate one individual.
(1620 )
I put this to my hon. colleague. Why would the tobacco
companies spend all these millions on fancy logos for tobacco
advertising if they were not trying to entice people to smoke?
These people are doing a good service in the sense that they will
still be promoting, but, believe me, they are not doing this out of
the goodness of their hearts. They are doing it mainly because they
want to draw young people into the web because others who are
dying are leaving the web due to tobacco related diseases.
His argument is not compelling. As a matter of fact it only
applauds that one individual who decided to stop smoking.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill on behalf of my
constituents. I realize that the bill contains many contentious
issues, but its over-arching principle relates to the fact that people
are dying in Canada as a direct result of tobacco consumption.
There are lots of ugly statistics related to tobacco consumption.
The 1991 figures indicate that 41,000 Canadians died of tobacco
related diseases. In Ontario over 12,000 deaths per year are
attributed to tobacco. It is projected that over half of today's
smokers will die of a tobacco related disease.
It has been said that tobacco is the only product legally available
on the market which is lethal when used as the manufacturer
intends it to be used. The statistic that half of people smoking today
will die from it produces a 50 per cent kill ratio. We do not use
them much any more, but there are weapons of war that have a
lower kill impact than 50 per cent. This kind of toxicity rates right
up there with weapons of war, perhaps with cyanide, perhaps with
the depletion of the ozone layer, perhaps with bullets. These are all
things that society has to regulate for the general well-being of its
citizens.
Principally the bill does four things. It will further limit youth
access to tobacco. It will restrict the promotion of tobacco products
to youth. It will increase the health information on packages related
to tobacco consumption. Finally, it will establish powers to further
regulate the sale and consumption of tobacco products.
8748
Much of that regulatory activity already exists in legislation.
However, the bill will improve or refine existing legislation.
A lot of discussion has taken place about the impact of this
legislation on public events which are sponsored by tobacco
companies. These events are sponsored as part of the advertising
campaigns of the tobacco companies. As someone said earlier, why
would tobacco companies spend $66 million a year on advertising
if there was not a benefit? They advertise because it enhances the
profitability of their enterprises.
With respect to the impact on public events which are currently
sponsored by tobacco advertisers, it is not just an Ontario issue, it
is not just a Quebec issue, it is not just a Toronto issue or a
Vancouver issue. I am disappointed that the tobacco companies and
the lobbyists are wrapping themselves in the flag of Quebec. I do
not think it is helpful to us in the House. I do not think it is useful
for Canadians to see an issue that way.
(1625)
I accept that a large amount of money is spent in the city of
Montreal on these events. As a representative of my area, I have
been shown the large amount of money spent in the Toronto area on
these events. People do come from all over the place to see and to
participate in the events. We have heard the names: the Benson &
Hedges Symphony of Fire, the du Maurier Jazz Festival.
Mr. Silye: Good advertising for them.
Mr. Lee: I am not afraid. I am going to speak to that later. I am
not embarrassed to mention the name of a tobacco company. I am
not even afraid to hold a cigarette in my hand. I do not smoke. We
have to be careful that we do not demonize in our society. We do
not want to demonize things the way we did with firearms. Good
people have firearms. Good people smoke and let us recognize that.
There happens to be a jazz festival in Toronto. There happens to
be jazz festivals in Montreal and in Vancouver and a tobacco
company happens to sponsor part of the costs. It is a good thing that
the jazz festival happens. I want to see those events continue. The
government recognizes that there could be a difficult period of
adjustment. It has allowed two summers of adjustment. Technical
provisions in the bill may further complicate the adjustment.
Perhaps the minister's regulatory authority will be able to smooth
that over.
As an MP I will be working with others in my community to
make sure these events can continue without the high level of
tobacco advertising support that they currently have. That does not
mean that there cannot be any tobacco advertising support, but
under this bill a lot of that support will be reduced.
We have two seasons to work on this. I hope we will have some
success. I commend the tobacco companies to the route that says
get creative, work within the law and advertise their product to the
extent that it is legal. I exhort them to stay away from our youth,
but I do not have any problems with attending a festival that
happens to have a tobacco company sponsor.
I found it disappointing to hear references in the media over the
last couple of days about the impending cancellation this weekend
involving an Australian auto racing event. It is almost unbelievable
to think that an advertising agency would consider doing this.
This bill has not even left the House yet, let alone to get into the
other place. It is not even law yet and someone is saying we are
going to have to punish the people of Canada for considering this.
We are going to punish the people who are fans of driver
Villeneuve. We are going to victimize Canadians because they are
considering this legislation.
I was very disappointed by that. Shame on those who conceived
of this as a way of influencing us. Hopefully the event will still be
publicized and the fans of Jacques Villeneuve will get to see him.
I want to comment on the insertion in the bill of a provision that
allows the House to review regulations put in place by the minister.
This is the first bill that I recall in some time that has such a
provision. I want to commend the member for
Lambton-Middlesex for her drafting and moving of this
provision. It is a concurrence provision that may be the precursor
of others which we may wish to make use of in the House of
Commons, given the extremely high volume of delegated
regulatory authority not just in this bill but in many other bills.
Once we delegate that authority rarely do members see the
regulations again. This amendment will allow the regulations
created under this bill to come before the House for our approval.
(1630 )
Mr. Penson: You had better give credit where credit is due.
Mr. Lee: I am giving credit to all members who participated in
this initiative.
Having been goaded by some members earlier, I raised that fact
that I was little uncomfortable with the atmosphere that demonizes
people who smoke. I know we are not trying to do so, but in an
effort to spin up the politics and get the bill passed we can say
smoking is bad for our health. In fact it is lethal. We must recognize
that there are many good people out there who are addicted. We
must look for soft landings for people who are addicted.
I close by saying that tobacco is now seen as an enemy of the
people. It has taken us 400 years since Sir Walter Raleigh to get
that far. Let us realize what it is. Let us recognize other countries
8749
such as France and the United States care about the health of their
citizens and are doing the same. I am prepared to support the bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to begin by reminding my colleague of what he just
said, about being disappointed, about being shocked, about the
media being used to underline the impact of the bill on events and
economic activities, about how people are going around attracting
attention.
The actions of his own colleague, the Minister of Health, have
been raised in the House, and this is in the hands of the Speaker.
Even before the bill has been passed, the minister has filled pages
in the newspapers with his references to the ``act'', not the ``bill''
but the ``act''. He is referring to Bill C-71 as though it were already
enacted. What is shocking is not so much that people are attracting
attention, but that a minister is using the word ``act'' when the bill
has not even been passed here in Parliament. That is what is
shocking, not the other way around.
I would like to remind members that not only did the official
opposition vote in favour of the principle of the bill at second
reading, but that it worked in committee and presented no fewer
than 32 amendments in order to take a proactive stance in the fight
against smoking. What did the government do? It rejected our
amendments. It did not see the worth of our proactive amendments
to combat smoking, did not think they could be useful to it. Why?
Because it rejects everything out of hand. This government is
intransigent and rejects the contribution of others out of hand.
The other extremely important point is that we tried to draw this
government's attention to the direct consequences of $30 million in
economic spinoffs for events, not in order to distract it from the
fight against smoking, and to get it to see that in many countries
provision has been made for transition. It is possible to negotiate,
to allow transitional measures.
Australia did and France is preparing to relax its bill to make an
exception for major events. Austria is doing likewise. In Hungary,
an exception is made for major events. In Belgium, a bill has just
been introduced that makes an exception for sports and related
events. This government has demonstrated its intransigence in this
regard and it is here that we would like to see the government take a
more responsible attitude.
[English]
Mr. Lee: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises the issue of
transition as an important part of legislation which requires
adjustment. That is a very good point. It is a very good point. We
need transition for our tobacco farmers and there is something
happening now for them in terms of transition.
(1635)
On the advertising issue, the hon. member will recognize that the
bill has a two-summer delay before implementation to allow for
adjustment on some of the advertising prohibitions. I know the
frustration of an opposition member when the government does not
seem to move. I sat over there for a long five years. Sometimes we
win and sometimes we do not.
I am delighted to know the official opposition endorses the bill
in principle. It is up to the official opposition whether or not it gets
hung up on all the details. The principle is very much there and I
am pleased to see the opposition endorses it and hopefully will vote
for the bill at third reading.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) Mr. Speaker, I
believe there have been consultations among the parties for the
following motion. I move:
That, when the House adjourns on Thursday, March 13, 1997, it shall stand
adjourned until Monday, March 17, 1997.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Is there unanimous consent for the parliamentary secretary
to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
The House resumed consider of the motion 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.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for
Calgary Centre.
I rise on behalf of my constituents from
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt to state our opposition to Bill
C-71, the Liberal government's proposed tobacco act. My
constituents and I have discussed the bill at length. We have talked
about it at town hall meetings and I have had a great deal of
correspondence on the issue. People called with their views when
the Liberals introduced the bill. I also conducted a poll in my
riding.
The poll confirmed that a statistically significant majority of
respondents do not believe that tax increases will cause people not
to smoke. Most important, 70 per cent of the respondents who
8750
were less than 18 years of age said that taxes were not a deterrent to
smoking.
When I recently visited the Keremeos Secondary School we
discussed the bill. We held a classroom poll. The students agreed
that they would not be deterred from smoking because of the
contents of the bill. They felt that negative impacts of the bill
would cause more harm than good.
The students listed the problems they predicted if the bill were
passed. They felt the black market in cigarettes would be
encouraged and incidents of theft would increase. They were
concerned there would be a rise in youth crime as a result of the
bill.
I have received a great deal of telephone calls and letters by mail
and fax from businesses in my riding concerning the bill. These
retailers are already doing everything in their power to prevent the
sale of tobacco products to young people. The following retailers
are furious the measures in the bill target them directly: Lai Wah
Lok, owner of Courtesy Corner in Lower Nicola; Adam Eneas,
owner of the Snow Mountain Market in Penticton; Denis
Bissonette, owner of the Osoyoos Duty Free Shop; and Dennis
VanRaes of the Super Save Gas Bar in Penticton.
All of them wrote to me outraged about the bill. They spelled out
the hardships their retail outlets would experience as a direct result
of Bill C-71. They are furious with the Liberals. They have told me
about the construction costs they will have to pay to modify their
retail outlets to satisfy the tobacco display requirements of the bill.
Their businesses will suffer once Bill C-71 becomes law. Their
businesses will be left with virtually a clandestine method for
selling tobacco products.
(1640)
The Liberals should be creating and developing a climate that
encourages growth for small and medium sized firms. Instead, the
Liberal approach is to penalize entrepreneurs with red tape,
restrictions and bureaucracy.
Bill C-71 is creating a special police force responsible for
patrolling small businesses to ensure they are not in contravention
of the bill. This is unbelievable in Canada, not to mention that it is
very costly.
With Bill C-71 we see that the Liberal solution to a problem is to
impose restricting regulations, laws and tax increases. The bill will
not solve the problem. The Liberals have let us down again.
The real answer to the problem of young people smoking is
education. My constituents and I want to see the government
educate our youth with respect to the effects of smoking.
Children are not stupid even though the Liberals think they are. I
have talked to many young people, students and very young
children in every corner of my riding. They are all very eager to
learn. It can be seen in their faces. The Liberals should throw away
the bill and all the things in it and focus their efforts on talking
directly to children.
The bill makes it clear the Liberals have totally disregarded the
option of spending federal government time, effort and resources
on delivering an anti-smoking message directly to the young
people of Canada.
My constituents do not want the federal government to be given
more power and control over our lives. We do not want the
government to interfere further into our lives.
Therefore the Liberals are not deterring smoking with the bill.
They are making older Canadians pay more for a substance to
which they have become addicted, tobacco, which has been legal
all their lives. It is not fair to tax senior citizens who began
smoking decades ago and cannot quit.
The bill should not seek to punish smokers. It should seek to help
prevent people who do not smoke, especially young Canadians,
from smoking.
The bill imposes a de facto ban on tobacco company
sponsorships but the Liberal health minister says that is okay. He
talks about the high profitability the banking industry is enjoying
and that it should be sponsoring events the Liberals are preventing
the tobacco companies from sponsoring.
Is the minister making a threat? Are the banks the next industry
to be punished by the Liberals in their attempt to address the
problem of smoking? How much of a punishment tax will the
Liberals make the banks pay to finance the sporting and cultural
events that have been stripped of funding by the same Liberals?
Who else will the Liberals tax to pay for these events? Will it be
other financial institutions? Maybe communications firms or
telephone companies. I predict the Liberals will pick a prosperous
industry, one that provides jobs for Canadians. Then they will
proceed to kill those jobs. They will assault that industry with a tax
grab and force it to pay for lost funding of cultural and sporting
events. The Liberal solution to every problem is tax, tax, tax, which
kills jobs, jobs, jobs.
The bill imposes a de facto ban on tobacco product advertising.
In my previous career I sold advertising. The bill makes clear that
the Liberals have made a serious error in their understanding of
how advertising works. They have seriously overstated the
influence of advertising on the Canadian public.
The Liberals believe we can lead a horse to water and make it
drink. The bill and its emphasis on advertising is an insult to the
intelligence of Canadians.
I do not smoke. I have never smoked. I am not influenced by
tobacco advertising. When I was young I was not influenced by
8751
tobacco ads. Nor was I influenced by one of my parents, three of
my siblings and most of my peers who smoked.
Who are the people the Liberals think are affected and
influenced by tobacco advertising? The young people to whom I
have spoken do not feel that they are influenced by tobacco ads
either. Products are sold through advertising efforts that are aimed
at the people who use the product. Companies pursue a market
share. They are chasing a piece of the pie and that pie consists only
of people who smoke. Tobacco advertising is focused on the people
who smoke.
(1645)
Tobacco companies are concerned about increasing the sale of
their brand by securing a larger percentage of the market. Their
advertising effort is not aimed at non-smokers. Such campaigns do
not work. There is no getting people to smoke. The results from
that kind of effort are not worth the cost of such a campaign. From
a sales and advertising campaign perspective, teenagers are not the
target, smokers are the target.
For example, if you are selling Cadillacs, you are going to starve
if your strategy is to sell a Cadillac to a person that drives a
compact car. Your advertising should be directed at the consumer
in the luxury car market. A Cadillac can be sold to a person that
drives a Lincoln.
The Liberals think that Canadians are stupid. This bill is so
typical of virtually all the legislation the Liberals have proposed
and passed during the course of this Parliament. The Liberals
support big government supported by big taxes and their policies
have resulted in high unemployment. This bill continues the legacy
of Liberal mismanagement.
Products that assist Canadians to quit smoking are becoming
very popular. Devices such as the patch and other therapies
designed to help smokers quit is a boom industry. What did the
Liberals do to help Canadians quit smoking? They raised taxes on
smokers and promise to raise them even higher and higher in the
future. What a pathetic effort.
My constituents and I are amazed at the parallels that can be
drawn between this legislation and the Liberal's Canada pension
plan contribution changes announced last month. The Liberal's
proposed Tobacco Act is not the solution to the problem and it will
punish Canadians who do not deserve to be punished.
In the case of the Canada pension plan the Liberals are punishing
young Canadians because successive Liberal and Tory
governments have mismanaged the Canada pension plan. Young
Canadians have to pay through the nose because of the largest
payroll tax grab in Canadian history. The Liberals promised
Canadians jobs, jobs, job. Their proposed Tobacco Act will kill
thousands of jobs as soon as its blade slashes through corner stores,
cafeterias, truck stops and gas bars across the country.
My constituents and I believe that young people are not going to
be prevented from starting to smoke as a result of this bill and
therefore I am very proud to stand on their behalf and vote against
Bill C-71.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was
really quite taken aback when the member started his speech and
announced that he would explain why he is not going to support the
tobacco bill, Bill C-71, after the vast majority of his colleagues
have risen in their place and have spoken so eloquently on the
fundamental health impacts of tobacco and the cost to our society,
not only in dollar terms but also in terms of lives.
The member said he went to kids and asked them whether or not
they thought advertising affects them. He concluded from this
interaction with these children that since they said it would not
impact them that is it. The irony here is that the research that has
been done over the last 25 years has concluded very clearly that if
you do not start to smoke by age 19 then likely you will never be a
smoker. Everybody in the tobacco industry, as well as the health
industry, knows that very well. This member knows that the
tobacco companies spend about $66 million a year on advertising.
He knows they do things like putting out slim packages of
cigarettes and calling them slims to attract young women. We
heard the statistics about lung cancer being the biggest cause of
deaths among women.
(1650)
I do not have to explain to the member the impact that
advertising has because the member was in advertising. That was
his profession. How can he stand here and say that advertising has
no impact? It cannot be both ways.
I would like to ask the member to explain again to Canadians
why he thinks that tobacco advertising has no impact on the
preferences of children.
Mr. Hart: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his
question. I would like to address the first part of his comments
when he said he was surprised that a member of the Reform Party
would stand and speak against the thoughts that others in his party
have voiced. That is the difference between this side of the House
and the other side. Reformers are not afraid to stand in opposition.
When we oppose something we can vote against the party if we so
choose and support our constituents.
I can understand why he is surprised and probably a little
envious of the position that I have taken today because it one he
cannot possibly take in the Liberal Party of Canada or this
government.
Yes, I have spent a considerable time in advertising and I can say
that advertising is designed for those people who are in the market
for a product. People will not buy something they do not want.
In my example I made it quite clear that a person who sells
Cadillacs cannot sell a Cadillac to someone who drives a compact
car. It would be a waste of money to attempt that. The advertising is
targeted to the people who are in the market for luxury cars. They
8752
are after a market share. It is naive of this member to assume that
any form of advertising can influence people to change their
lifestyle or their attitude toward something.
I will use the example of people in the auto supply business who
are trying to sell anti-freeze in the middle of a hot summer. It
cannot be done. It is a market share and there has to be a need for
the product. The companies are trying to increase their market
share among the ones that are competing for the business.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, the bill is teaching me a lot about life in
general. In Canada we have guaranteed rights and freedoms-
The Deputy Speaker: I apologize to the member, but I have to
read this before five o'clock. Would he permit me to do it and then
we can go back and he will get an extra 20 seconds on his speech?
[Translation]
It is my duty, pursuant to the Standing Orders, to inform the
House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of
adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Parry
Sound-Muskoka-small business.
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in Canada
we have guaranteed rights and freedoms except when it comes to
any activity ending in i-n-g. Then we have governments that
interfere in our every day lives in the name of a better good with
new regulation and laws.
Bill C-71 is an example of a much bigger issue than just tobacco
and smoking and who and where it can be used. It is also about
rights and responsibilities.
Before I elaborate, let me state that because I agree with the
intent and target of the bill to help care for, educate and protect
one's minor children, a big responsibility of all levels of
government, I will vote for and support the bill.
It will restrict advertising in magazines with less than 15 per cent
youth content. No advertising will be allowed on billboards and bus
shelters, but it will be allowed in areas and places restricted to
minors. Displays will be restricted in retail outlets and no vending
machines will be allowed in public places.
Finally, the one that bothers the tobacco industry and of course
the Bloc members, is the limitation being placed on sponsorships
where the space occupied by an ad cannot exceed 10 per cent of the
surface area.
(1655 )
These regulations will not stop young people from smoking.
They will be a deterrent, but they are only a step in the right
direction. What is needed is education.
There should be funding for legitimate organizations, such as the
Neighbourhood Tobacco Recovery Network, which is active across
Canada. It reaches out to aboriginals. We must teach young females
that smoking does not keep them thin. I believe that is why a lot of
young females smoke. They believe it keeps them thin.
I encourage the minister to start investing in schools, in groups,
in hospitals and in other places where we can educate and give all
concerned the proper facts from which to make an informed
decision.
That brings me to the bigger issue. I quote from a paper on civic
responsibility in Canada which was prepared by the Library of
Parliament on August 22, 1994. It states:
In Canada -individual rights are both entrenched in the Constitution and
safeguarded in legislation at the federal, provincial and territorial levels. While it is
generally accepted that with these rights come corresponding duties, individual
responsibilities do not appear at the forefront of Canadian society to the same extent
as individual rights. Moreover, it is not simply the protection and advancement of
individual interests which form the basis of civic responsibility. There is also the
broader type of public duty to advance the common interest or good. Responsibility
from this perspective involves contributing to the construction, maintenance,
transformation and improvement of the community as a whole.
Given that both rights and responsibilities are an essential condition for the
normal functioning of any society, many people feel that more emphasis must now
be placed on public responsibilities in order to recognize, preserve and strengthen
Canada's social fabric.
This is the part I like:
A balance must always be maintained between individual liberty, the liberty of
other individuals and the reasonable demands of the community.
Seeking this balance is what divides Canadians. Seeking this
balance is what is pitting tobacco industry manufacturers, retailers,
political parties and provinces against one another. It is a tough
problem to solve. The bigger issue is encroachment into the area of
rights and freedoms. However, sometimes we forget about
responsibilities.
I submit that while young people are definitely influenced to
smoke through advertising and accessibility, this bill has not and
cannot prevent the two biggest causes. I believe that my colleague
from Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt who just spoke has
underestimated the value of advertising. It has a huge influence on
people. That is why companies and retailers spend billions of
dollars on advertising. They do not just target the people who use
their product, they target non-users to show them the kind of
lifestyle they could live.
8753
Advertising is a big factor which the bill addresses. I support that
measure. However, the two biggest reasons that cause young
people to smoke, which the bill does not and cannot address, but
which I will mention because it pertains to the responsibilities of
people in society, are the adults and parents who smoke. Kids see
adults smoking everywhere. The adults tell their kids: ``You cannot
smoke. Do not smoke. You are too young. It is not good for you''.
However, when the children see adults doing it, what influence
does that have? I do not know how to combat that, but it is there.
The second reason young people smoke is peer pressure, to be in,
to be accepted. Every generation goes through that. We all went
through it when we were younger. We all rebelled against the older
generation, to which I now belong. Young people like to rebel. I am
50 years old and in the three or four generations I have been aware
of smoking was one way to rebel. That will continue.
However, we can combat that through education and better
information on the effects of smoking and the higher degree of
addiction for cigarettes versus alcohol. All those statistics are
important. Maybe one good cure is to take an underage person out
behind the barn somewhere and give him a cigar or make him
smoke a half a pack and let him get green in the face. That will cure
that person. According to one Bloc member if you have one
cigarette you are addicted for life and you have to have another one
after five minutes.
(1700)
Those are some of the issues in terms of this bill that will not
really be able to solve youth smoking. We know it is going to
continue to exist. It is important to find that balance especially with
something that is legal. Smoking is legal and we have to remember
that. The government is trying to both huff and puff and suck and
blow at the same time. When it is doing that it has to be very
careful to balance all aspects of individual rights, corporate rights,
citizen responsibilities, civic responsibilities and the cost to our
society in terms of the health, opportunity and the loss of freedoms.
This issue is also about money. There is a thriving and healthy
industry called the tobacco industry. It generates huge profits and it
also pays taxes. Governments collect these taxes and reinvest them.
I had one constituent write to me on this issue and I said I would
mention it the next time I spoke to this bill. The problem is that
some of these things like smoking and drinking have an impact on
those taxpayers who do not smoke and drink because it is their tax
dollars that are going to subsidize those who are sick in hospitals,
those we have to pay for because of the greater number of diseases
that smoking and drinking cause over and above what we eat,
because eating also causes diseases. As I said, everything that ends
in i-n-g seems to have a problem with it.
We do have a responsibility as politicians. I believe that this bill
for the very reason that it targets a specific area, youth smoking,
has tried to balance and finish a job that a prior government did in
terms of regulating something that is legal. It is better to make it
legal, to monitor it and regulate it than to ban it. If smoking were
banned, then obviously there would be a lot of underground activity
in that area. We would have a lot more criminals in the streets and
people committing crimes. We do not want to make criminals out
of people who want to smoke.
It is a tough act to debate. I am in favour of the targeting of better
education for youth, making it less accessible for youth and so on.
However, I in my heart of hearts as a businessman I do not like it. I
feel very threatened by governments that try to tell me how I can
market my product, how I can sell my product, when I can sell it,
where I can sell it and how much advertising I can do. All these
things that get to the other side of it bother me.
On balance I feel that the government and the health minister
have made a very commendable effort to resolve all the
differences. Listening to the debate today I was almost scared. If it
is that bad maybe we should be doing something more serious
about it. I guess we will keep it legal. We will continue to monitor,
regulate it and try to keep it out of the hands of those people who
are the most easily influenced, who can become addicted the
quickest and the longest, thereby shortening their lives.
Therefore factoring in all these things, I submit that this is a bill
that should be passed and certainly the majority of the Reform
Party will be supporting this bill. I would like to congratulate our
critic on this issue from Macleod who has listened to debate within
our caucus very often and very reasonably. There were a lot of us
who had different opinions and differing points of view. He
certainly welcomed the debate and did a good job of bringing out
all aspects of this complicated issue.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want
to thank my colleague for Calgary-Centre for his speech.
(1705)
He dealt in his own way with the major objection we have to this
bill, although we agree with much of its substance, that is, the
effect of the abolition of sponsorships on smoking, particularly
among the young people.
With the disappearance of sponsorships, there will be no
sponsoring of sports and cultural events. Quebec receives $30
million out of the $60 million spent for sponsorships. It will be
greatly affected, and this will create unemployment.
Unemployment is a source of problems. It has been demonstrated
that when there are problems, smoking increases.
8754
I would like to ask my colleague a question about that.
Following a study by Statistics Canada, we read this in the press,
and I quote:
Studies show that young people smoke first and foremost to imitate their friends.
But this does not account for the fact that their consumption has increased in the last
few years.
According to analyses, the fact that teenagers rebel against ``the system'' may
have something to do with it. The data indicate that 53 per cent of the young people
who drop out of high school smoke. Disheartened by the gloomy prospects for the
future, they are all the more inclined to challenge the increasing prohibition on
smoking.
When we see what the government has done on unemployment
insurance, it is clear that these prospects are even more gloomy. As
the people's sufferings increase, so does their smoking.
Here is another quote:
We have seen however that peer pressure or restrictions such as those imposed by
governments do not encourage smokers to quit. Two times out of three, that is, in 66
per cent of cases-health concerns prompt smokers to butt out.
Does the hon. member believe in the equation that the
government makes between the abolition of sponsorships and the
reduction in the smoking?
[English]
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I would answer that question in this way.
First, it has been quite clear, if one reads the bill, that sponsorship
has not been banned or abolished. I wonder if the member
understands what is in the bill. Sponsorship has not been abolished.
The amount of space that can be put on a sign has been reduced.
The fact that one cannot have the whole sign but only a bit of the
sign does not mean that sponsorship is abolished. The tobacco
companies can still sponsor these races and participate. Therefore,
that issue has been somewhat misrepresented.
The quickest way to get people to do something is to tell them
they cannot do it. I do agree with the member on that issue. If we
tell young people they cannot do something, their curiosity is
perked and they will want to know why. They are curious and
therefore will tend to try it. We can never stop that because it is
human nature. However, the only way to combat that is to educate
the children and make the product more unavailable and
inaccessible to them until they are adults.
We must tell those parents and anyone listening to me now that if
you smoke and you have children, let your children know what is
good or bad about smoking and do not let them smoke until they
are of age. If the parents do that then they will have done their part.
The children are then making an informed decision. We should
have the right to chose the poison of your ilk because that is, after
all, what we get if we are Canadians. We have individual rights and
human rights. We are born with certain rights and we have the
freedom of choice.
However, we have to educate people that by choosing this way or
that way, these are the consequences. I am sure that the minister
will also spend some money in education. Just like Alcoholics
Anonymous, there are tobacco recovery networks out there that
will help those people who want to quit. It is an addictive, strong
habit and those who want to quit cannot. We have to help those
people as well. That is our job and the job of government.
This is one example where I see that this bill is a much bigger
issue than just tobacco. It is a balancing act. With respect to all the
sponsorships to all the sporting events in Quebec-
The Deputy Speaker: Sorry to interrupt the hon. member. The
hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development.
(1710)
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to speak again on Bill C-71, for it seems to be that the
debate has grown out of all proportion to the reality of the situation.
It appears that, as a result of the regularization of tobacco
advertising-and not a total ban-almost all cultural events and
associations are going to disappear from Montreal. I must,
therefore, point out a few things.
First of all, the bill before us is the result of a Supreme Court of
Canada judgment. Prior to that judgment, there was a total ban on
tobacco company advertising, yet cultural and sporting events did
exist in Montreal and elsewhere in the country.
Second, let us look at the percentage of revenues coming from
tobacco sponsors compared to the total revenues of the various
cultural groups. Mr. Speaker, were you aware that tobacco
sponsorships account for only 1 per cent of the total revenues of the
National Theatre School of Canada in Montreal, 0.4 per cent of the
revenues of Montreal's Grands Ballets canadiens, 0.8 per cent of
the revenues of Centaur Theatre, 0.4 per cent of the revenues of the
Musée d'art contemporain de Montréal, and 0.3 per cent of the
revenue of the Opéra de Montréal? I have a much more detailed list
here, but those few examples are enough to lead me to my next
point.
The question that inevitably arises is this: why do tobacco
companies contribute such minimal amounts to support cultural
events of this calibre? Why? The answer is simple: because the
people who go to these events are adults, not teenagers.
I would like to explain how tobacco advertising during a cultural
or sporting event can influence our young people, since the sports
media, manipulated by the tobacco companies, give the impression
8755
that watching or attending a sporting event has no impact on the
consumption of tobacco.
I would like to quote Francis Thompson, who said the following
in the monthly magazine Info-Tabac:
To sell a product as repugnant as cigarettes, you have to invest massively in
marketing. It is no coincidence that for more than 70 years, the tobacco industry,
which is quite small, has invested more in advertising and promoting its product than
any other industry, with the exception of the automobile industry. The marketing
budgets of cigarette manufacturers are a long-term investment in what we could call
``social seduction''. Remember that expression ``social seduction''.
The primary objective of tobacco companies is not to sell a product outright as in
the case of a car or another product but to influence the social or cultural image of
the product, the shared perception of what it means to be a smoker.
One element has not changed: the vast majority of new customers are recruited
among young people, because almost no one starts to smoke once they reach
adulthood.
Although manufacturers say they do not aim their advertising at non smoking
teenagers, they nevertheless have to design their advertising so as to reach young
adults. Obviously, ads aimed at 19-year olds may very well have an impact on
16-year olds or 17-year olds.
Most boys know perfectly well they will not become racing car drivers by
smoking Rothmans; girls also realize that Matinée cigarettes will not make them look
like Claudia Schiffer.
Teenage girls also know they will never be as rich as Madonna, but that does not
prevent millions of teenage girls from imitating her look. Adolescence is a time
when we seek ways to create a new identity, symbols that we can flaunt, that show
we belong to a certain group and set us apart from the world of our elders, our
parents or our teachers who impose a list of don'ts which, paradoxically, are also part
of the rites of passage.
It is also peer pressure, not advertising, that leads a person to his
first cigarette. So, what role does marketing play? It adds a little
impetus to peer pressure.
Over the years, a fairly extensive list has been compiled of the
risk factors found often among adolescents who take up smoking.
Among the most important are poverty, change in social status,
the perception that smoking is what everybody does, identification
with peers rather than family, lack of self esteem, failure in school,
aggressiveness or shyness and, finally, difficulty in turning down a
cigarette.
Those just starting to smoke have no doubts about the dangers of
smoking, because they almost universally think the risks do not
apply to them, since they will not become addicted. You know,
when you are an adolescent you are invincible. This brings me to
the subject of marketing.
As the industry can hardly affect poverty levels or promote
failure in school, it focusses on making cigarettes the norm and on
personal freedom. Tobacco is at times associated with, believe it or
not, happiness, even health, because the ads depict dynamic
individuals, who appear to be in great shape, sociable and well off,
often in settings involving sports.
We must not forget that brand identities have been created. In an
Ontario study done in 1992, anthropologist Grant McCracken
showed-
The Deputy Speaker: Unfortunately, the hon. member's time is
up.
[English]
It being 5.15 p.m., pursuant to order made Tuesday, March 4, it
is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every
question necessary to dispose of third reading stage of the bill now
before the House.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
(1745)
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 254)
YEAS
Members
Alcock
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Bakopanos
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bethel
Blaikie
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chatters
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Culbert
Cullen
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
Epp
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Forseth
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Godfrey
Graham
8756
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Harb
Hayes
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Johnston
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lee
Lincoln
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Manning
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
Mifflin
Milliken
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Reilly
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Riis
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robinson
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Simmons
Solomon
Speaker
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wayne
Wells
Williams
Wood
Zed-139
NAYS
Members
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Dubé
Duceppe
Godin
Grubel
Guimond
Hart
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Laurin
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Speller
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont) -37
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anderson
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Barnes
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bodnar
Cowling
Crête
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dumas
Fillion
Flis
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Gerrard
Guay
Harvard
Langlois
Lefebvre
Loney
Mercier
Picard (Drummond)
Rock
Sheridan
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Venne
Volpe
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed.)
The Deputy Speaker: The House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
8756
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP) moved
that Bill C-304, an act to amend the Criminal Code (aiding
suicide), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, each year in Canada more than 190,000
Canadians die. We know that some 40,000 Canadians die each year
of tobacco related causes and I am very pleased that this House has
just passed Bill C-71 which will have an impact on health, in
particular young Canadians.
Of those 190,000 Canadians who die each year, some die of heart
disease, cancer, respiratory diseases, AIDS and other infections.
They die of trauma, genetic illness or a host of degenerative
diseases.
Among those Canadians who die each year are a small number of
Canadians who unfortunately and tragically suffer terribly. The
purpose of the bill before the House today is to amend the
provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada, specifically section
241 of the Criminal Code, to allow individuals who are terminally
or incurably ill, who are suffering terrible anguish, pain or
indignity who cannot be assisted by palliative care, to seek the
assistance of a doctor to end that pain and suffering.
The last time I introduced this legislation was September 21,
1994. Earlier that same year, on February 12, 1994, Sue Rodriguez
died. Sue had fought a long and courageous battle, a long and
courageous battle in Parliament through parliamentary commit-
8757
tees, in the media, publicly through a variety of public fora and of
course in the courts to change the criminal law.
On September 30, 1993 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled
against her petition. By the narrowest possible majority of five to
four, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the constitutionality of
section 241 of the Criminal Code of Canada. Before that the British
Columbia Court of Appeal, again a deeply divided court with the
chief justice of the court dissenting, upheld the constitutionality of
that law.
What every judge of the supreme court clearly argued, what each
of the three judges of the B.C. Court of Appeal powerfully and
eloquently stated, was that this issue, this complex, difficult and in
some cases agonizing issue, is one which must ultimately be
resolved by the Parliament of Canada, which must ultimately be
decided by the elected representatives of the people of Canada.
(1750 )
In the days following the death of Sue Rodriguez the Prime
Minister of Canada and the Minister of Justice both promised in
this House and elsewhere that there would be a free vote in the
House of Commons, that each member of the House of Commons
would wrestle with their conscience, would listen to the arguments
of their constituents and others and would be allowed to vote on
this change in a free vote.
In my speech on this bill previously in September 1994, I
reminded the government of that promise. I reminded the
government of the commitment that was made, the solemn
commitment of the Minister of Justice, the Prime Minister and of
many other members of the government to allow this House to vote
on that issue. I suggested that there might be a vote on that issue
hopefully by June 1995.
Here we are over two and a half years later, and after those
promises were made what we see is once again betrayal, once again
another broken Liberal promise.
There is a very important and fundamental principle here.
Canadians are entitled to assume that when a minister of the crown,
when the first minister, the Prime Minister, promises that the
House of Commons will be able to vote, surely they are entitled to
believe that promise, to take the Prime Minister at his word, to take
the Minister of Justice at his word.
That has not happened. When I questioned the Minister of
Justice last fall on this issue it was very clear that the House would
not be allowed to vote in a free vote or any other vote on this issue
in this Parliament. Shame on the government of Canada.
I hear one of my colleagues from the Reform Party agreeing, the
member for Elk Island. Whatever one's perspective on this issue,
surely we as members of this House should be given an opportunity
to voice that perspective, to vote according to our conscience on
this issue of how we live and how we die.
What has happened in the meantime since the last debate in this
House in September 1994? Too many terminally or incurably ill
patients have suffered, in some cases terrible pain or anguish or
indignity, or they have been sedated to the point of pharmaceutical
oblivion, or in some cases they have chosen to take their own life
prematurely because they did not want to face those terrible
choices. In some cases they have been assisted, assisted by a loved
one, by a family member or by a doctor to end their life in some
cases in defiance of the criminal law.
I recall the case of a gentleman from Windsor, Austin Bastable,
who chose to leave his country. I say chose to leave his country. He
felt he had no choice other than to leave his own country because he
was not able to obtain the assistance he sought to end his suffering
at the end of his life.
Under the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada for
an individual who is one of those individuals, and I believe it is a
very small number, who is terminally or incurably ill, who has
sought the assistance of a physician, who has sought palliative care,
pain management, that individual for whom palliative care or
proper pain management simply and unfortunately did not respond
to their suffering, what are their choices?
Yes, there are Canadians in that situation. Fortunately through
good palliative care there are only a small number of Canadians
who cannot be assisted. But even the Canadian Association of
Palliative Care Physicians and others acknowledge that there are a
small number who cannot be assisted by palliative care, who will
suffer pain, anguish, profound indignity.
(1755 )
Under the existing provisions of the Criminal Code, those
people, in the final few months of their lives, face one of two
choices. I remind this House that suffering in many cases is shared
by their families and loved ones. Either they continue to suffer or
be sedated into a state of complete stupor or pharmaceutical
oblivion, as one of the witnesses to the Senate committee recently
said.
For some Canadians those choices are simply not acceptable. It
is for that small number of Canadians that I believe another option
should be made available. One of those Canadians was Sue
Rodriguez. It is because I believe the other option, the other choice
should be made available, with very strict safeguards to be sure,
that I am presenting once again this private member's bill to amend
section 241 of the Criminal Code.
I believe it is profoundly unjust and inhuman to force people to
make that choice between suffering and anguish on the one hand
and complete stupor and sedation on the other.
8758
There have been some developments both in the law and in
Parliament since the last debate in this House. The Northern
Territory legislature in Australia became the first jurisdiction in
the world to legalize, again with strict safeguards, changes in the
law to allow for choice in dying.
Circuit courts of appeal in the United States, the second circuit,
the ninth circuit, both ruled in favour of choice in dying.
A special committee of the Senate studied this issue in great
depth and came to the same conclusion on the issue of assisted
suicide as the Supreme Court of Canada. Again, by the narrowest
possible majority, four to three, the Senate committee
recommended against a change to section 241 of the Criminal
Code.
However, I think it is particularly significant to note that the
dissenting senators were Senator Joan Neiman who chaired the
committee, a very distinguished senator who no longer sits in that
place, Senator Sharon Carstairs and Senator Wilbert Keon, one of
the most distinguished heart surgeons in Canada, who in the end
supported the change in law which my bill would seek to achieve.
The committee members heard from many witnesses and made a
number of profoundly important recommendations. Many of the
recommendations I agree with. They recommended that
governments make palliative care programs a top priority in the
restructuring of the health care system. They recommended that the
Criminal Code be amended to clarify the practice of providing
treatment for the purpose of alleviating suffering that may shorten
life. They recommended that the Criminal Code be amended and
necessary legislation be enacted in order to explicitly recognize
and clarify the circumstances in which the withholding and
withdrawal of life sustaining treatment is legally acceptable. They
recommended that provinces move ahead on advance directives.
As I said, a minority, three of the seven senators, recommended
changes to section 241 of the Criminal Code as well as voluntary
euthanasia for competent individuals who are physically incapable
of committing assisted suicide.
Recently Senator Sharon Carstairs presented a bill in the other
place, Bill S-13. I commend Senator Carstairs for her leadership on
this issue. Her bill would provide that no health care provider who
honours the wish of a competent person for the withholding and
withdrawing of life sustaining treatment would be guilty of an
offence under the Criminal Code.
We are told by a number of people that is the existing law and yet
Dr. Wilbert Keon, who seconded Senator Carstairs and who
strongly supports her bill, has said that there remains great
uncertainty in the law in this area. He said that many doctors are
looking for more definition and more direction from society as to
how the subject should be addressed. He said that dying patients
are suffering needlessly because their doctors do not want to
provide adequate sedatives to reduce pain just in case the drugs
themselves cause death and they find themselves facing criminal
prosecution.
(1800)
We should listen to the very powerful plea of Dr. Keon and
others to at least take this modest step. When the bill ultimately
comes to the House of Commons I hope members will see fit to
support that change.
I am somewhat discouraged. If members of the government were
not prepared to support a very straightforward proposal to
effectively codify the existing law, it is clear to me the proposal to
amend section 241 of the Criminal Code is still some way off in
terms of support from the Government of Canada.
The Liberal politicians in this case and others are way behind the
public. I commend the leader of the Reform Party, the member for
Calgary Southwest, who some time ago canvassed the opinion of
his constituents. In his survey he found that 82 per cent of his
constituents supported this change in the law. The leader of the
Reform Party has said that he would vote in respect of the
recommendations of his constituents on the issue.
The fundamental issue is one of personal autonomy, the right of
a competent adult to make this choice for himself or herself. There
are a variety of models before the country. I do not have the time to
outline them now.
The Right to Die Society, for example, has put forward a
proposal by Dr. Eike-Henner Kluge that warrants serious
examination. Dr. Stanley Rosenbaum on behalf of Choice in Dying
and a number of people in Ottawa put forward another option.
Dying with Dignity has yet another suggestion. There are a variety
of proposals. There must be strict safeguards, but at the end of the
day choice should be available.
Many doctors believe the law should be changed. A study
presented last September to the annual conference of the Royal
College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada by two Calgary
doctors, Dr. Douglas Kinsella and Dr. Marja Varhoef, found that a
significant majority of doctors supported a change in the law to
facilitate and allow physician assisted suicide. That survey was
very extensive.
Dr. Marcel Boivert, a very respected palliative care physician at
the Royal Victoria Hospital in Montreal, said:
We are playing ostrich if we do not believe that covert, active euthanasia is being
practised right now. On Fridays, people who are near dying are having their doses of
morphine increased by 50 per cent, 100 per cent or 150 per cent.
Surely it is time to take this issue out of the shadows. It is time to
listen to the doctors, other health care workers and social workers
like Russel Ogden who pointed out the extent to which this is
8759
happening without any safeguards. It is sometimes horribly
botched in the community of people who are dying of AIDS.
Sooner or later our laws will change to end this cruelty. I hope it
is sooner. It is clear we cannot rely on the courts. Perhaps it will
take a brave doctor to challenge the law. I do not believe in the
narrow circumstances that any jury would unanimously convict.
We recall it was another doctor who challenged the law on abortion
which ultimately led to the Supreme Court of Canada striking down
the law.
I urge Canadians who are concerned about the issue to ask
candidates in the upcoming federal election where they stand on
this important issue.
In closing, I remind members of this House that in her final
public words Sue Rodriguez said:
I hope my efforts will not have been in vain and that the Minister of Justice will
introduce legislation into Parliament soon so that terminally ill people will have
another option available, thereby permitting physician assisted suicide for the
terminally ill.
I quoted those words in concluding my remarks in September
1994. I wanted to quote those words again and leave the House with
them. As I said at that time, I profoundly hope Parliament will
respond to this plea.
I have to ask how much longer we must wait before the law
changes. How much longer must we wait before the House is
allowed to vote on the issue? How many more people and families
must suffer in some cases unspeakable pain, anguish and indignity
before the law is finally changed?
(1805)
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to comment on Bill C-304, an act to amend the Criminal
Code (aiding suicide), introduced in the House by the hon. member
for Burnaby-Kingsway.
Let me begin my remarks by recognizing that the hon. member
has on a number of occasions attempted to bring the issue before
members of the House for discussion and debate. Clearly it is a
matter of particular concern to our colleague. I commend him for
his efforts in trying to deal with what he perceives as weaknesses in
the current provisions of our Criminal Code which deal with aiding
suicide.
Before I turn to the specific provisions contained in Bill C-304 I
would like speak of the work undertaken in the Senate to examine
this and relate issues. The matter of assisted suicide and a variety of
subjects related to the end of life care and decision making such as
palliative care, cessation and withdrawal of treatment and
euthanasia were examined in great detail by members of the
Special Senate Committee on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. The
special committee issued its report on life and death following
many months of hearings and deliberation.
The Senate currently has before it Bill S-13, an act to amend the
Criminal Code (the protection of health care providers), which is
now the subject of second reading debate. The purpose of the bill as
stated by the hon. senator who sponsored the bill is to implement
the unanimous recommendations and chapters 4 and 5 of the Senate
report which deal with pain and pain control and the withholding of
and withdrawal of life sustaining treatment.
Senator Carstairs has taken great care to point out when
discussing the subject matter and merit of the proposed amendment
to the Criminal Code that it does not deal with either assisted
suicide or euthanasia. Why is that? I suggest that it is because the
members of the special Senate committee were not unanimous with
respect to the matter of assisted suicide.
After months of study and deliberation they were unable to agree
that the Criminal Code should be amended to remove the
prohibition against aiding suicide. I further suggest this lack of
unanimity may well reflect the views of many Canadians with
respect to the issue. There is great public interest in issues
surrounding the end of life. These are issues which every one of us
must face. We must bear in mind, however, that there are many
perspectives from which to examine these issues, be they medical,
legal, social or ethical.
In addition, we must remember these issues are not confined
solely to an analysis of assisted suicide or physician assisted
suicide.
I would like to take a few moments to provide a brief overview
of the analysis of the particular provisions contained in the bill
proposed by the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway.
Bill C-304 provides that no qualified medical practitioner
commits an offence of counselling, aiding or abetting suicide or
any other criminal code offence where the practitioner aids a
terminally ill person to commit suicide at the request of and with
the voluntary consent of that person, with the approval of at least
one other qualified practitioner.
Some may think at first glance that this provides concise and
sufficient guidelines. I am of the view that if we were to agree at
any time that such an amendment is required more work would be
necessary to give Canadians the appropriate legal framework
within which to reach this kind of decision.
Save for the exception presented in the proposed subsection
241(2), aiding suicide would remain an indictable offence with a
maximum of 14 years imprisonment. The circumstances in which
the protection would operate must be clear. I suggest that a number
of clarifications would be required.
8760
First, the term terminally ill is not defined. There is no generally
accepted medical definition for this term, only operative
definitions, for example, for placement in palliative care. This
would prove problematic.
(1810)
Second, as set out in Bill C-304 the patient must provide
voluntary consent without spelling out what constitutes voluntary
consent. One potential difficulty is that there is no requirement that
the patient be competent to consent. I suggest by way of example
that persons suffering from depression may not be competent and
may still provide voluntary consent.
Third, there are no provisions in the bill regarding the situation
of the incompetent patient. This was an issue raised during
argument in the Rodriguez case before the Supreme Court of
Canada, that is how the case of the incompetent patient would be
dealt with if competent patients were permitted to request assisted
suicide.
Fourth, the bill does not deal specifically with children. Though
the general language of the bill would include children, there are no
provisions dealing with substituted consent in the bill. Are children
who may be able to give valid consent to be permitted to request
assisted suicide? If substituted consent is to be provided who may
validly give that consent?
Fifth, we are all aware that family and friends of patients are
sometimes prevailed upon to assist the patient in dying. As written
Bill C-304 would provide no protection even to the most
sympathetic cases of this kind. It would provide protection only for
those in the status of a physician. While it is not suggested that this
is or is not the manner in which the House may decide to deal with
the issue, it is important to ensure that when we do so we are
cognizant of and discuss all situations where the need to address
the question of assisted suicide may arise.
As the Prime Minister has indicated this is a highly complex
social and moral issue. Assisted suicide, euthanasia and cessation
of treatment are difficult matters for all Canadians. The Senate
committee after many months of consultation produced a very
thoughtful report which must be considered by everyone concerned
with these issues. They were unable to agree on how the matter of
assisted suicide should be addressed.
We have been assured by the Prime Minister and the Minister of
Justice that it is the intention of government to provide through
Parliament at the appropriate time a forum for informed discussion
to allow members to consider matters relating to the end of life
decisions.
Therefore, while I commend the hon. member for
Burnaby-Kingsway for the steps he has taken to see that
parliamentarians turn their minds to these issues, in my view it
would be inappropriate for members of the House to deal with the
amendments proposed in Bill C-304.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate on Bill
C-304 introduced by our colleague, the hon. member for
Burnaby-Kingsway, and I have several reasons for that, the main
one being that the debate stirred by our colleague is one that has
been going on for years in our society. I am convinced-and I will
get back to it later in my remarks-that a great many people wish
the government would move on this.
First of all, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for
Burnaby-Kingsway and commend his courage on this issue and
others in the past, particularly what he did for Sue Rodriguez.
Through his courageous actions, he keeps the debate alive and
gives it credibility. This is much to his credit.
(1815)
As he pointed out, assisted suicide is a serious issue that
deserves consideration. Again, this is a moral issue and, as such, it
necessarily calls for a free vote in this House and, as hard as it may
be to deal with psychologically and emotionally, it needs to be
addressed and solutions need to be found.
In debating bills in this House, it is often argued that, when a
government at any level adopts legislation, there is already a broad
public consensus on this issue. Governments always act after the
fact, because governments are seldom proactive, and this issue is a
perfect case in point.
My hon. colleague from Burnaby-Kingsway mentioned
surveys, and several could be quoted here, all of which clearly
show that the public is far ahead of politicians, and government
members in particular, because, so far, they have not had the
courage to fulfil their commitments in this respect. They are way
behind because there is a broad public consensus that this issue
should be addressed not only on a legal level but also on a human
level.
We all recall that, just a few years ago-I am sure it must have
been the same in the rest of Canada as in Quebec-one would go
out of his way to maintain anyone who was ill, especially the
terminally ill, by any therapeutic means available, whether drugs or
technology.
The medical community, and particularly the public, protested
against what was then called aggressive therapy. The expression
became widely known. Eventually, a stop was put to this practice,
except for rare isolated cases. Now, the medical community and the
public at large recognize the need to respect the individual.
This is a fundamental notion that comes into play when a person
reaches the end of his life. I believe an individual has the legal
right, but should also have the opportunity to die with dignity,
8761
when faced with a disease that leaves him no hope and nothing to
do but wait for a lingering death.
We can think of the physical and psychological pain of the
person who is going to die, but let us not forget the psychological
torment of the close ones. That pain too must be taken into account.
This is why, in Quebec, the lawmakers introduced a legal provision
with a very limited scope, whereby any individual can make what
is called a living will. This means that the person can, in an official
legal document, decide how he wants his life to end, should he find
himself be in a situation where he is unable to make that decision,
particularly if faced with an incurable disease that could unduly
prolong his life in excruciating pain.
(1820)
Although I do not have with me figures to support my
contention, I know through my family and the people I meet, that
an increasing number of people have a living will. In other words,
more and more people not only hope, but demand to die with
dignity.
It is strange to have a debate on one's right to die with dignity,
considering we usually make sure of this for our pets.
Indeed, anyone who owns a sick cat or dog will immediately
seek to put an end to its suffering. I am not saying that measures
must be adopted blindly that would lead to decisions being taken
lightly. I am saying that, when it comes down to it, it seems a bit
odd-ridiculous even, I would say-for there to be a discussion of
the need to die with dignity. This ought to be an automatically
recognized right, which does not need to be proven.
Our present system involves hypocrisy, as the hon. member for
Burnaby-Kingsway has said. At the present time, the practice in
Quebec-and in the rest of Canada, I understand-is to relieve the
suffering of patients who are headed inexorably toward death by
stepping up their medication, even if this hastens their end. This
cannot, however, be done openly. Physicians or nurses who do so
could be brought before the courts at any time, unless the Criminal
Code were amended along the lines the hon. member for
Burnaby-Kingsway wishes. Let us put an end, then, to this
hypocrisy, given the public consensus on this.
I will close on this point. A new term would also have to be
adopted to replace ``assisted suicide''. It is true that, in reality, if
someone asks to have his life shortened, this is a form of suicide,
but I believe that presenting it in this way is putting it in a negative
light, whereas all the person is asking is to die with dignity.
Everyone ought to have that right.
[English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have listened to
the speeches today and I must admit that the arguments are
seductive. I listened to the member for Burnaby-Kingsway say
that very few people in Canada would require these mechanisms.
I have up to date research from a country that has practised
euthanasia and assisted suicide. This study from the Netherlands is
brand new research which I received last week. This discussion has
engaged the Netherlands for some 20 years. Although it is not
legal, for about 10 years in the Netherlands there have been no
sanctions against euthanasia and assisted suicide, if certain criteria
are met. These are the criteria that the Netherlands required for
euthanasia or doctor assisted suicide to take place.
(1825)
It must be voluntary. It must be a well informed, well considered
request. There must be a persistent wish to die. There must be in
the patient intolerable and hopeless suffering. The procedure
requirements are such that another physician must be consulted so
that not just one doctor is involved. Finally, a report of the case
must be sent to the coroner's office. Those are the tight, nice strict
criteria that doctors in the Netherlands must follow.
What has happened in Holland? I am going to be selective in the
information I give here. The information is quite vast. About 2,000
people per year have been euthanized in the Netherlands following
those criteria supposedly.
In the survey of the family physicians in this study it was found
that 9 per cent of those individuals had on one or more occasions
deliberately terminated the life of a patient without the patient's
explicit request. Let us round out the figure to 10 per cent. About
200 people per year are euthanized in Holland, and I am being very
specific, without the patient's consent.
One of the first criteria for euthanasia was that it must be
voluntary, then well informed, then well considered, then a
persistent wish to die, intolerable and hopeless suffering. For 200
people in Holland none of those things existed. A physician, by
himself or herself, decided that the quality of life was no longer
worth living. It is the only country in the world where there is this
sort of experience.
I believe that the criteria were well meant, were well discussed,
were well laid out and failed. The colleagues of mine in the
Netherlands who debated this, set down very strict criteria. They
failed. They flopped.
I am going to give two examples of how I think this path is the
wrong path. The first one is from my own practice experience. I
had a terminal cancer patient in hospital. She was suffering all the
bad things at the end of life. She said to me in the evening:
``Doctor, could you just give me something to end my suffering?'' I
said to her: ``I anguish for you. I feel for you. My heart goes out to
you. I think we might be able to find an alternative''. I talked to the
nurses on the station telling them my patient was really down.
``We need to change her medication. We need to alter her
treatment. Instead of giving her shots, we need to give her some
8762
intravenous medication''. We changed the palliation that I had been
giving her. My palliation was not good enough.
I got the nurses to stay with her. She needed some personal
support that night. Then I phoned her family and said: ``Grandma is
really, really tough tonight. Could anyone from the family please
come and be with her. She needs some support''. Things did settle
down. The medication worked better and she was no longer
suffering so badly and I went home. When I went back the next day
to the hospital I found her sitting up, playing chess with her
nephew. This was a different woman over this span of time.
The next day she said to me: ``Dr. Hill, thank you so much for
not listening to me two nights ago''. From that I took it her plea to
me was based more on depression and intolerable pain. The change
I had made was a palliative change.
(1830 )
I will give another example that is much worse. It is from the
Dutch experience. A doctor I know had a compatriot with an
85-year old patient with congestive heart failure, treatable only in a
hospital and needing a shot of a medication called Lasix. She did
not want to go to the hospital because, she said, they performed
euthanasia on 85-year-olds in that place. The physician promised to
look after her, so she agreed to go to the hospital.
She received her shot of Lasix which makes the kidneys more
effective. She voided all this extra fluid in her lungs and felt much
better the next day. It was a Friday and her physician was off duty.
He had left to do the normal things a doctor does on weekends.
He returned on Monday to find that the covering physician
whom he did not know well had needed a bed for a younger patient.
He just went down the list and found the 85-year-old and
determined that she was the least likely to live a worthwhile life.
Members know the rest of the story. She was gone on Monday
when he got there.
He will never be able to face what he did. He had promised her
that she would be fine. The best intentions, the best safeguards and
the best ideals did not work for that 85-year old individual. It was
the wrong way to go.
I can quote my own constituents on the issue. I have polled them
and it was fascinating. Thinking there would be a free vote on the
issue I did a quick poll. I asked: ``What do you think of doctor
assisted suicide?'' The poll came back with 55 per cent in
agreement.
When it became obvious I had more time and it would not be a
sudden thing, I polled my constituents in a much more specific
way. I laid out the options of palliative care, the options that are
available, and the switch in my constituents was dramatic. They no
longer supported doctor assisted suicide when it was educationally
explained to them.
My stand was very plain to them on both surveys. I am against
doctor assisted suicide from my personal experiences and my view
from international experience. It is the wrong way to go and I do
not support any move toward doctor assisted suicide. I will do
everything in my power while I am in the House to move down the
road toward palliative care, the road toward care for those who are
dying rather than snuffing them out.
The Deputy Speaker: There being no further members rising,
the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway is entitled to sum up the
debate fairly briefly.
He has indicated he does not wish to do so.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chairman: As there are no more members wishing
to speak and as the motion was not selected as votable, the time
provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has
now expired and this item is dropped from the Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
8762
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, further to my question to the Minister of Industry, I do not
think there is anything quite as important or quite as critical for us
as a government than our support of small business.
It is absolutely essential that as a government nationally and as
individual members of Parliament in our ridings we have a strategy
to help the small business men and women who every day go out
there and risk everything they have to create wealth and jobs in our
ridings.
I see a strategy for small business consisting of three
components: access to information, access to capital and a
streamlining of regulations as we talked about with the minister
during the question.
In terms of access to information, in my riding we have had the
opportunity to host three economic development forums to give the
business community the opportunity to explore new strategies, to
see new opportunities and to pursue new initiatives.
We have had an opportunity to have two access to capital
seminars where we have had a chance to talk with our business
8763
community and our providers of financing and to explore ways
they could have better access to capital.
I make a point to regularly communicate with my business
constituents so that they know about the programs and initiatives
we are undertaking as a government.
A number of initiatives in terms of access to capital, both
nationally and locally, in ridings like Parry Sound-Muskoka have
been undertaken. First of all, through work that I was able to do on
the industry committee and on the access to capital task force, we
worked with the Canadian chartered banks to introduce five tools to
help individual business people obtain capital.
We have in rural Canada and particularly in Parry
Sound-Muskoka the Community Futures Development
Corporation. In my riding we have three branches of that
corporation which are providing small businesses with loans up to
$75,000.
The Business Development Bank also operates in my riding. The
government has raised the lending limit for the bank from $3
billion to $15 billion. New tourism initiatives have just been added
for the Business Development Bank. They have loaned millions of
dollars to the small business men and women in the riding of Parry
Sound-Muskoka.
We have also seen an increase in the small business loan limit,
which went from $4 billion to $14 billion in the most recent budget.
Of course in northern Ontario, in the Parry Sound portion of my
riding, FedNor, the regional development agency, has seen its
budget increase to $60 million.
Finally, a third component of the strategy is streamlining
regulations. The minister mentioned in the reply to the question
that a 15 per cent decrease in regulations has taken place. The new
hires program introduced by the government will provide a tax
holiday on new hires for EI premiums. We have seen a move to
quarterly remittances instead of monthly remittances. These are all
attempts to streamline regulations.
I urge the Minister of Industry to continue the government's
initiative to support small business both across Canada and in my
riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka.
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
can assure the House that Statistics Canada is actively working
with small business to choose the best time of year to complete
survey information.
For example, in the tourism sector, an area of concern for the
hon. member, the traveller accommodation survey has been
changed to a mail-out in March instead of the end of April, as was
recent practice, to avoid burdening business during the start of their
busy season. The retail travel survey is always mailed out in
January or February.
Statistics Canada is firmly committed to reducing paper burden
and has taken a number of specific initiatives. By using existing
data collected by other departments, small businesses are receiving
tens of thousands of fewer questionnaires. Many surveys use a
simpler, shorter questionnaire for small business. Rather than
survey all businesses, the smallest possible samples are used.
These measures have enabled Statistics Canada to move in the
last two years to reduce the burden it imposes on small business by
over 15 per cent.
As a further measure to assist small business, Statistics Canada
has in the last month created the position of ombudsman
responsible for response burden reduction. The ombudsman will
review individual cases to assess how businesses can be helped
most effectively.
The government has been listening to the small business people
from across Canada and their concern about the extent and number
of requests for information they have been receiving. Because
information burden is a government-wide issue, the President of
the Treasury Board has established the joint forum on paper burden
reduction. The is a unique partnership comprised of small business
and federal government representatives and is a tangible measure
of the government's commitment to breaking down barriers to
small business growth.
The seven departments represented include Industry Canada,
Human Resources Development Canada, Revenue Canada, Public
Works and Government Services Canada, Finance Canada,
Statistics Canada and Treasury Board Secretariat-
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member's time has expired.
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been
adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at ten o'clock.
(The House adjourned at 6.39 p.m.)