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
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-
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.
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.
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.
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
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,
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?
[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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.)
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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:)
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
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.