[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Friday, December 6, 1996
.0907 
[English]
The Chairman: Order, please. Good morning, everyone. We now begin our committee study of Bill C-71, An Act to regulate the manufacture, sale, labelling and promotion of tobacco products. We welcome the minister, the Honourable David Dingwall, as our first witness, together with some of his officials.
Before we invite the minister to make a brief opening statement and then respond to some questions, let me welcome a couple of our colleagues who, though not regular members of the committee, are here this morning substituting for regular members who could not be here: mygood friend from Haldimand - Norfolk, Bob Speller, and my good friend from Kamouraska - Riviere-du-Loup, Paul Crête. Bienvenue, Mr. Crête.
This morning, after we've heard from the minister and put some questions to him, we will hear from department officials, as we agreed yesterday. Then towards the end of this morning's session, around 11:30 a.m., depending on when we're through with the department officials, I propose that we hear from one other witness, who contacted us late yesterday. That witness is unable to be with us on Monday. It's the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board. We'll be hearing from them at the end of the morning, probably around 11:30 a.m. Once we've heard that witness we will conclude our hearings for today and come back at it again on Monday at 10 a.m. and sit throughout the day.
Welcome, Mr. Dingwall. I understand you may have a statement. It's good to have you, sir.
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I thank my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Health.
I have with me Judy Ferguson, director general for health policy and information, and France Pégeot, director of the office of tobacco control.
I hope, Mr. Chairman, with your permission and the permission of my colleagues, I will be able to make a brief statement, and this statement finished, I would have an opportunity to show a short video presentation.
.0910
Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to discuss Bill C-71, the Tobacco Act, with committee members today. This legislation is a cornerstone of the government's comprehensive tobacco control strategy. It complements the tobacco tax increases and anti-smuggling initiatives announced last week as well as education programs designed to make Canadians more aware of the health consequences of tobacco use.
In tabling this legislation the government has one overriding objective, the health of Canadians, and in particular of young people. The statistics paint a stark and compelling picture. More than 40,000 Canadians die prematurely every year from tobacco use. Right now many of the 7 million Canadians who smoke are victims of tobacco addiction. One in three young Canadians smoke, and half of them will have their lives shortened by a tobacco-related disease.
Few Canadian families have not been touched by the suffering or death of a loved one as a result of smoking. Over the past decade, in fact, nearly half a million Canadians have died from tobacco-related causes. Many interests may be involved in this issue, but can any one be more important than health and human lives?
When the court ruled on the Tobacco Products Control Act in September 1995, it ruled that controlling tobacco advertising is a valid exercise of the federal criminal law power. In drafting this bill we have carefully followed the guidance followed by the Supreme Court of Canada. Our purpose has been to respect fully the Charter of Rights and Freedoms while ensuring the legislation achieves our fundamental health objectives.
Since Bill C-71 was introduced, spokespersons for the tobacco companies have said our proposed measures are too restrictive. Medical and health groups support our measures, although some believe we should have gone even further to restrict tobacco advertising and promotion. I believe the measures contained in Bill C-71 are balanced and reasonable. They respect the tobacco companies' freedom of expression and they advance the government's objective of protecting the health of Canadians, particularly young Canadians, from a product that is inherently hazardous, addictive, and lethal.
Let me briefly outline the factors that shape this bill, Mr. Chairman. Last December the government released its blueprint to protect the health of Canadians. The document defined our health objectives and the approach to tobacco control we proposed at that time.
Since the release of the blueprint, we have consulted extensively with Canadians from coast to coast to coast. We have considered the views expressed in follow-up consultations with medical and public health experts, provinces and territories, community groups, non-governmental organizations, affected industries, arts and sports groups, and individual Canadians. We have reviewed more than 3,000 submissions presented to Health Canada. Let me emphasize here that we will follow the normal regulatory process and will consult further on the regulations. Those affected will have ample opportunity to comment on the regulations as they are developed.
We also considered research undertaken by Health Canada and a significant and increasing international body of research. We consulted and worked closely through the drafting process with the Department of Justice to ensure our proposals reflect the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. The justice minister has already expressed his confidence that Bill C-71 respects the Supreme Court ruling and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
All these factors shaped our proposals. They account for the fact that while our approach reflects the directions outlined in the blueprint, we have refined the original proposals in some areas.
On advertising, for instance, the blueprint called for the most comprehensive prohibition on advertising possible. That is what we are proposing. Bill C-71 will prohibit all tobacco advertising except non-lifestyle ads in publications with primarily adult readership and indirect mailings.
.0915
On sales promotions, point-of-sale and sponsorship promotions, we have modified our original proposals slightly to reflect the reality of potential charter implications. We also listened to retailers who had reservations about our original proposal to allow the display of only one package of each brand.
Our proposed measures will nonetheless effectively control the extent to which young people are exposed to tobacco advertising and promotion, from billboards and store displays to tobacco promotion through sponsored events.
With respect to access to tobacco products, labelling and product regulation, our proposals build on what was contained in the blueprint.
Our priority in developing Bill C-71 has been, as I said at the outset, young people. They are the most tragic casualties of tobacco use and addiction. They are also the most aware of and the most vulnerable to tobacco promotion. Of all new smokers in Canada, 85% start smoking before the age of 16. Without them the market for tobacco products would decline and, in my view, fade away.
The chief opponents of this bill are in the old game, if you will, of positioning issues to the benefit of their own interest. They are already positioning freedom of speech as their shield in defence of ``business as usual'', namely reassuring everyone, especially the youth of Canada, that tobacco is normal, it's acceptable, it's everywhere, it's an intrinsic part of our successful and glamorous way of life. As young people would tell you, they try to paint the picture that smoking is sexy, it's cool, it's okay, it's normal.
The government's view is entirely different. Health is the issue. Kids need and will in the future need their health. They won't need cigarettes. The industry's freedom to promote a legal but nonetheless addictive and lethal product must be regulated in a way that responds to the health imperative. There can be no ``business as usual'' approach with a product that kills 40,000 Canadians each and every year and costs $3.5 billion in direct health care costs each and every year.
The industry has said it only wants to target adult smokers to persuade them to change brands. But the side effects of this massive promotional effort mean youth are caught in a cross-fire, a cross-fire of lifestyle and brand competition at the age when they are going through the smoking decision process, and when seeming to be an adult to others is tremendously important.
The government is not proposing to prohibit tobacco advertising or sponsorship promotion, but rather to limit and control the manner in which these activities may be carried out. This responds to the decision of the Supreme Court, which recognized the validity and importance of the government's objective, but stated that tobacco companies should be allowed to communicate with consumers of their product. We are acting to limit the damage ultimately done by the inducements to use tobacco products and brands, inducements that counter health education and the best health advice society can offer to young people: simply, don't smoke.
The proposed restrictions taken all together provide the industry with varied and reasonable - and I wish to underline ``reasonable'' - opportunities to communicate to adult consumers in conformity with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Kids will always be curious, and far too many will still try tobacco products. But these restrictions will lower the volume of tobacco promotions, cut off direct routes to influence youth and provide adult consumers with the information they need to assess the health consequences of using these legal but deadly products.
.0920
In conclusion, Bill C-71 has been very carefully drafted, taking into account the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. Its goal is to achieve all that a law favouring health could hope to achieve while preserving rights protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I hope my colleagues will feel free to raise any concerns and issues. By all means, please do so, but please do so constructively and, I suggest, expeditiously. Let's show our concern in caring for the health of this generation and future generations of Canadians and not let this matter tie up the Houses of Parliament, as it did previously for well over a year.
I will be appearing before you for about an hour this morning to answer your questions and concerns, and my officials will remain for the better part of the morning to answer the various detailed questions you might have.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to conclude, if I may, by showing a short video that describes in a very succinct way the reasons we are here and the objective of Bill C-71.
Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Minister.
Before we go to questions for the minister, we're going to have the video.
[Video Presentation]
The Chairman: In a moment we'll begin hearing from the members of the committee.
I want you to keep in mind that we have some guidelines, which we don't often use, but we'd better return to them this morning. We'll have ten minutes for the first round and then five minutes for subsequent rounds.
I just say to members of the committee, if you want answers, you have to stop talking short of ten minutes. If you use all of your time making a comment and asking questions, that's fair ball, but there will not be an answer, because I will go to the next witness.
.0925
To help you, we'll let you know when you're at about eight minutes, so you'll leave time for the witness to respond to your question.
First is the member for Lévis, Mr. Dubé.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé (Lévis): Minister, as you noted yesterday, because the Official Opposition agreed with the objectives pursued by the bill, it gave its agreement and support in second reading. Why? Because it is the usual custom in Parliament that in second reading, we discuss principles. We are essentially in agreement with the objectives and analysis related to deaths and disease. We agree. We said that and we repeat it, we agree. However, there are at least five things with which we do not agree. I will describe them very briefly and then I will put my questions to you.
During your presentation, you stated that you had followed a normal process; that is, you had consulted many people and you would be consulting many more when the regulations were being drafted.
Yesterday, something happened. The Official Opposition, like the Reform Party, was only allowed to have one member speak to the bill in second reading. Immediately afterward, the chairman of the committee called a meeting and here we are this morning. It was a very quick process and this was freely admitted; we were led to understand very clearly that this bill must be passed before the holidays.
Given the aspect of the regulations and since, essentially, you're asking the House of Commons to allow you to develop the regulations for each chapter, this is acceptable in principle. However, this does contain rather strict regulations which in our opinion, should normally be passed by the House of Commons in a piece of legislation. One of your objectives, and this was clearly specified, was to follow a legislative process.
Minister, I'm forced to tell you that you are using a regulatory process. We in the Official Opposition recognize that there are important causes, of course, and this cause is very important, but it does not warrant disregard for the rights of parliamentarians. That's exactly what we're experiencing right now.
As far as the Supreme Court is concerned, we are asking you why you are not tabling the legal advice of the Minister of Justice if you have it in hand. Why not? If it were possible, we would like to have a copy of it, because as members of Parliament, we would really like to know whether this legislation has any chance of resisting a challenge.
We also question this magic number of 10% concerning sponsorships. Where did that figure come from? Why 10% and not 20% or 5%? We would like some explanation, especially since within the 10% in question, contrary to what was in the old legislation, it would seem that anything is permissible, unless you have specific intentions about this in the regulations. If that's the case, I would like you to tell us that here this morning.
Lastly, I would like to raise the issue of individual rights dealt with in subsection 53(2). In our opinion, the burden of proof is being reversed; that is, individuals accused of an offence are forced to prove that they are not guilty. That is not the usual practice, Minister, and it can be strongly contested. We are telling you that now. For our part, unless there is some clarification or amendment to this proposal, we cannot accept having people forced to prove their innocence, when the opposite principle usually prevails in our justice system. People must be proven guilty to be found guilty.
On the whole, that is our position.
.0930
Yesterday in the House, I stated that we agreed with the objectives. A certain approach may be necessary, either the approach that I would qualify as morbid, that is, that we should talk about the deaths that occur and recognize that this is the main cause of preventable deaths in Canada. At the same time, we may be able to adopt a positive approach, that is, talk about the benefits of being a non-smoker, for instance, in the case of athletes or artists who use their voice. This aspect has not been sufficiently developed; educational methods have not been sufficiently developed until now.
Moreover, legislation is sound insofar as it is enforceable. When we read in a study that you had conducted by an independent firm that 50% of tobacco retailers do not comply with the legislation, we know we have a problem. A nice law that is not enforceable and which is not enforced is no better than a bad law. It becomes only words. What do you intend to do about this?
That is essentially what I had to say. I'll give you the floor.
[English]
The Chairman: Minister.
Mr. Dingwall: There were a lot of questions and observations made in the honourable member's intervention, but let me say to our colleague that I am very appreciative of the support his party has given to the goals and objectives of Bill C-91.
As I'm sure the honourable member is perfectly aware, the purpose of the bill, as contained in clause 4, is really the pith and substance of Bill C-71. By having voted in favour of the bill at second reading, the Bloc members have shown some non-partisanship, and I congratulate them on that.
For the record, clause 4 has a number of components - namely paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) - which I think, if they could be read into the record, perhaps typify the pith and substance of second reading and the purpose of the bill. So I thank my colleague for that.
In terms of his comments regarding the process, I think the chairman said it best. This subject matter has been around for a considerable period of time. When the blueprint was made available in February 1995, a number of consultations took place with industry groups, various cultural groups and various health groups all across the country. Those have been very extensive - I believe approximately 3,000 or upwards of 3,000.
I've asked my officials to provide to committee members, no later than this Monday, a compendium of the list of people they have consulted with. But if members are still having doubts, there are several boxes here that include the different submissions that have come from different parties across the country. I know some members will want to see some of those things, but we will give you the appendix of the various submissions that have been made.
There have been a lot of consultations. I say to my friend that hopefully we could agree, as political parties, notwithstanding their ideologies, on what we might do at report stage and third reading to have a reasoned debate. Put forward your constructive suggestions and I will certainly examine them very carefully, and where possible, in terms of the objectives of the bill, we will try to accommodate the members in terms of their suggestions.
On the third point, which talks about regulatory process versus the legislative process, I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree to disagree with my colleague. The fact of the matter is that the legislation is very clear when it comes to most aspects of the entire bill, as you look at clause 4 and other aspects thereof.
.0935
We are bound as parliamentarians to consult when we enact regulations. I have given that commitment on the announcement of the government policy. I've given that commitment in the House. I give that commitment to my colleague here today. But we must also do something else. Consult, yes, but we have to gazette, and the gazetting process automatically triggers other consultations. We want to do that with the industry and with the various groups that would be affected.
But I have to say that the legislation you have before you really addresses the pith and substance of the government's policy as it relates to tobacco control.
In terms of your issue about 90%-10% and why it is 10% - 10% is what we deem to be reasonable. If the honourable member is suggesting we have 5%, in terms of giving to the various companies, I will take that under consideration. If an appropriate amendment comes forward, I will give due consideration to that.
With regard to subclause 53(2), where it is interpreted or possibly could be interpreted that there is a reverse onus provision, I say to my colleague that this provision has been adjudicated by the Supreme Court of Canada. In its keeping with the laws and traditions, the state still has to prove there is a mens rea and an actus reus in order to get a conviction under the law. So there's nothing extraordinary or peculiar about this particular subclause. It has been affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada.
I think my colleague makes a very sound intervention when he talks about the positive aspects of not smoking. The state, certainly at the federal level and the provincial level, can do more to induce positive representations in terms of non-smoking and the effects that can have on your health.
When we talked with young people, they thought the best way to communicate the message to young people was by young people, because peer group pressure is probably the biggest reason why young people smoke. Young people said, ``Minister, that's a fact, and if you want to change that, you have to get young people talking to young people that it's not cool to smoke''.
Can we have other third parties do that? I say to the honourable member, I think we can. I don't want to give too many details, but I have met with, for instance, leading groups in the sports field and they have indicated to me that they would be very happy to do endorsements and public advertisements, for instance, for the purposes of non-smoking. We could tailor those, as you say, not in a negative way but in a much more positive way.
But it still comes down to the fact that if we're trying to get to young people, I think we're going to have to work with young people, and young people are going to have to convince their peers that the best route they can pursue is to not start smoking at all. That would be the most effective way in terms of curtailing young people.
But I take what the honourable member has said in terms of the positive nature as opposed to the Draconian negative, and I think we'll have to work at that with other partners. It is not something that is the sole responsibility of the state. It's the responsibility of parents too. It's the responsibility of teachers. It's the responsibility of NGOs and of governments at every level, and we hope to be able to work with them.
The Chairman: Jim Silye.
Mr. Silye (Calgary Centre): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Minister, for appearing here before us this morning. I'd like to change the style here and ask some quick questions and be as brief as I can. If you can make your answers as brief as my questions, maybe we'll be able to cover a lot of ground.
You're in a tough situation. I recognize that. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't, especially with the Supreme Court ruling. We're all here to try to do what's right, so I think this is more of a non-partisan meeting than we've ever had before. I do know that tobacco is addictive, much more so than alcohol, and therefore it has a terrible impact on our youth. I agree with everything you've said about that.
.0940
The first concern I have, though, is this tight balancing act that you have between the producer and the customer. You say you don't want to prohibit advertising or sponsorship, but the producers and manufacturers claim that you will be. They will claim that you are prohibiting advertising the brand name at the point of sale.
I'd like you to address whether that's true or not true. Will that then cause us a problem in the Supreme Court? Will they challenge it in court? That's the first question.
Ms Judy Ferguson (Director General, Health Policy and Information Directorate, Department of Health): Advertising will be restricted at the point of sale. We are limiting advertising to printed material in publications with primarily adult readerships. We are limiting it to direct mail to adults, which includes e-mail, and we will be limiting it to signs in places where young persons are not permitted by law.
As for advertising that companies will be allowed to do, we are looking at the kind of ads that would be detailed in regulations that would be the subject of consultations with the industry. There would be health messages on the ads. There would be toxic-constituent information on the ads, but there would likely as well be a depiction of some sort of the tobacco package, which is one of the more significant advertising tools the tobacco company has.
Mr. Silye: Will it be a no-name package or will it be -
Ms Ferguson: No, we're not considering that at all.
Mr. Silye: So they could put their brand name on it. They could put Rothmans or du Maurier on it?
Ms Ferguson: Yes.
Mr. Silye: Oh, okay.
Mr. Dingwall: If I may, Mr. Chairman, to my colleague, they will be able to put their name on the product. If they weren't allowed that, we would be in violation both of trademark and of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because the product is not deemed to be an illegal product. That's the balance here.
Mr. Silye: No, I appreciate that.
The second question relates to the powers granted under the regulations to the Governor in Council. This is a very big concern. I feel that if you give Health Canada extremely broad and far-reaching powers that go even beyond the scope of the act and if Health Canada doesn't have to come back to Parliament - after all, we are the guardians for the public - then there could be some question about the democratic process in this situation.
Here are my concerns. I know that the major concern about this legislation of our chief health critic, Mr. Grant Hill, is the powers granted under paragraphs 7(e), 14(e), 14(f), 17(b), 17(c), 33(i) and 33(j) and clause 42. He indicates that there are far too many clauses in the proposed act that are prefaced or made conditional with such phrases as ``subject to the regulations'' and ``in accordance with the regulations''. There's also the fact that any changes, after we approve or pass this bill, can then be amended or changed by Health Canada just through an Order in Council.
Do you have any concern about that, Mr. Minister, for the day or the year after you're no longer there?
Mr. Dingwall: Do you know something that I don't know?
Mr. Silye: Yes, maybe a couple of years from now.
Mr. Dingwall: Mr. Chairman, my colleague has dealt with a very important question, and it may take me a moment or two. He's right to make reference in terms of our consultations for the purposes of regulation, but the bill was drafted in such a way that it is in different parts.
For instance, you have a part I and a part II. Part I, for instance, is tobacco products. That in itself has a series of regulations. Part II is access. That has a series of regulations. Part III is etc., etc. Each has its own compendium, if you will, of regulations.
Here's the reason and rationale for that. Say there's a challenge on the constitutionality of this particular bill, and they challenge us, for instance under part III, which is labelling, on the regulations. If at some future time the Supreme Court would deem them to be ultra vires or unconstitutional, it would only be that part, not the bill, that would be null and void.
What you saw in the last piece of legislation that went before the Supreme Court was that they found the bill to be null and void and ultra vires. Therefore it was thrown out. If there was ever a challenge, it would only be on that particular part.
Second, in terms of the power of the state in terms of regulatory control, our intent here is to gather information for the purposes of developing good public policy. There is much scientific evidence out there, and the state must gather this. It must have the capacity, the enabling legislation, to gather that information.
.0945
Only then would the state be in a position to come forward with a new public policy. If it came forward with that new public policy under the auspices of regulation alone, the regulation would still have to be gazetted through consultations. There would have to be consultations on the gazetting process.
I would think that under its normal routine any Parliament would be seized with it either on the floor of the House of Commons or the standing committee of the day, which would have the power and the legal right to ask what was going on here with regulatory control.
It's not an issue in the sense that it's Draconian, but in the sense of getting information before us so we can take the appropriate action that's in the best interests of the health of Canadians.
Mr. Silye: The final area I'd like to just touch on is this. I know there's a fine line between the taxes charged on cigarettes and the retail net price to the manufacturer. We have smuggling now east and west. People from British Columbia come east and go to Price Club to buy $500 worth of cigarettes and take them back home. We've stopped some of the smuggling on the borders.
I feel that one of the important elements in this to help prevent youth from smoking is getting funding for people at the local level who are close to these kids and to the school grounds in community groups that do this, much like Alcoholics Anonymous. There are some groups you're aware of. I forwarded some information to you about groups like that that are around. They're qualified and legitimate. This is meant to help the kids. They work on reserves as well. It's for all Canadians.
I just feel that raising the tax by $1.50 per carton.... This is my personal point of view, mind you, so don't take this as the Reform position. I think you could tack on another 50¢ here to help fund those groups that are legitimate and qualified that Health Canada would approve. Let these groups work in the local communities of Ottawa, Arnprior, Calgary or wherever to educate these kids.
As for advertising, they won't listen. We know that. That money is better spent, I think, one on one, group to group in clinics. This is part of the educational process. I just feel that if you're going to target youths, that's one of the ways to help. That's a recommendation I have for your department to consider. I know my colleague even said you should raise it a heck of a lot more. So I think there's room, before smuggling increases, for you to increase that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Dingwall: Mr. Chairman, my colleague again has made a very valuable and positive point. I think we'll pursue the suggestion he has made. I know of the particular item he's referring to, and I think he can be reasonably assured that we're going to move on that.
You're quite right. It will be through a variety of different groups working with young people, young people working with other young people, and the community working hand in hand, whether that's in the schools, arenas or wherever it may be. I think that's very important.
I do want to point out that a balance was struck in terms of a cost increase and the smuggling issue. I think I had at least three discussions with the Commissioner of the RCMP, the Solicitor General, of course my cabinet colleagues and also Revenue Canada. There is a fine, fine balance. The best intelligence that we could gather is that if we raised the price any more than what we have done, the prospect of additional smuggling could rise again.
I'm one of those who would have liked - I'm sure many others would have liked this - to perhaps have a bigger increase. That's because there's a big element here in terms of the price and what it does.
I think it would have triggered more problems than we would have solved, because with smuggling interprovincially and internationally, cigarettes are cheaper. Also, they become accessible to elements of our society, thereby it becomes more advantageous, and in effect more people end up smoking. That's certainly not what we want to do: increase tobacco consumption.
.0950
We think we've reached a balance based upon the best evidence we could get, and I have to take the comments of the RCMP and my colleagues quite seriously. I think I get the gist of what the honourable member is saying, and it is a valid point, but I think we have been trying to reach that balance.
The Chairman: Thank you, Minister.
John Murphy.
Mr. Murphy (Annapolis Valley - Hants): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for coming, Mr. Minister. I compliment you on your proposed legislation. I think it is crafted well, and you know I'm a strong proponent of this legislation.
The two issues I'd like to raise this morning are issues that came from people in my riding as late as yesterday. One is from a tobacco store owner who has written me three times, and called me twice yesterday. He believes that Health Canada has every right to educate people about the risks involved with tobacco use, but he drew the line, as he said to me: ``When government starts to come across the threshold of my store and starts to interfere with my business, then I believe that they have overstepped their mark.'' I'm looking for a response to that.
The other issue was raised by an open-line show host in the valley, who I know very well. He argued two or three times yesterday on the telephone with staff and myself. He was arguing, ``Come on, John, you know that all this is a tax generator and that's the reason you're not banning the substance.'' I argued back and forth with him and gave him my side of it, but he said, ``No, no, when you really come down to it, this is a tax generator. Government, if it really wanted to, could ban the substance.'' I of course said, ``Well you just don't leave seven million smokers out there.''
Those are the two issues on which I would ask for a response, please.
Mr. Dingwall: Thank you, colleague.
As to the legislation and the policy, we looked at the four key elements of marketing strategies, and whether it be Nike, Pepsi, Coca-Cola - you name it - there are four key elements: the price, the place, the product itself, and the promotion. What we've done in the legislation and in the policy is try to address each of those key elements in a very balanced and comprehensive way.
On the price, I think many health groups would say we have not gone far enough and that the price should have been driven up substantially more - as some of my colleagues, quite rightly, claimed also. But as my previous answer indicated, it has been a balance.
On the place, there have to be some restrictions on the place in terms of where this product is sold and the kinds of conditions in which it is sold.
I say to that individual who says government is overstepping the threshold that the fact of the matter is that 41,000 Canadians die each year because of tobacco consumption. Ministers of health in Quebec, Alberta, B.C., and Nova Scotia say, ``This is $3.5 billion to our health care systems.'' Therefore we had to put some restrictions on the place, on the promotion of the product, and on the product itself. We've tried to do that.
On the question, why not ban the substance, if we were to ban the substance, I can just see what would happen. We have seven million Canadians who are addicted to smoking in this country, and I think we would trigger a round of smuggling and racketeering in this country that we haven't seen since the days of prohibition. Certainly it's not our intention both to go to racketeering and, if you will, smuggling, because we think in the end more people will end up smoking as a result of that.
We can't ban the substance, but we certainly can put restrictions on the various elements to deny, as much as humanly possible, the access for young people to cigarettes and their effects on them. The longer we can keep the substance away from them, the greater the probability they will not be addicted.
.0955
I think I used the figure 29 in my remarks. Twenty-nine percent of 15- to 19-year-olds smoke. Fourteen percent of 10- to 14-year-olds are current smokers, and 85% of smokers begin before they reach the age of 16. That's a startling number of smokers.
If we can prolong that decision.... You probably know, as I know, that smoking is no longer acceptable for most of us where we go, in terms of different receptions. People don't smoke like they used to. It's just not acceptable any more. But for young people - it seems to be acceptable to them. We're attempting to deny as much access as we possibly can.
Mr. Murphy: Thank you, Mr. Minister.
The Chairman: What we're going to do now to save time, as John Murphy used only about half the time, is I'll ask Bob to use up the remaining time on this round.
Mr. Speller (Haldimand - Norfolk): Harb has to leave.
The Chairman: Okay. Harb Dhaliwal, the member from Vancouver South. You've only got about five minutes, though.
Mr. Dhaliwal (Vancouver South): I have a question, but I want to assure my colleague it's an opportunity to ask a question because he's moving forward. I have another appointment I have to go to.
First of all, Mr. Chairman, let me congratulate the minister on this new legislation. As the minister may know, we've had some excellent witnesses coming forward on the whole cigarette issue. I presume the success or failure of C-71 will be based on what the results are. The real test,Mr. Minister, will be the results.
My first question is, there are 7 million Canadians smoking, which is about a quarter, and I'm wondering if you have any long-term objectives as health minister in terms of reducing the number of smokers out there.
My other question is one of.... Let me quote to you from Dr. Andrew Pipe, who made a very excellent presentation to this committee. He said ``Smokers smoke for nicotine, but die from tar.'' I want to ask you, in terms of content...and I guess people smoke because they get addicted to the nicotine, but the real health hazard is the constituents from the smoke and the tar.
Under part I of the legislation, it talks about the product and content. Will you be considering controlling the nicotine content in the cigarette? I wonder if you can respond to that.
The other thing is, from presentations made to this committee.... Obviously the maximum bang for the dollar that you will get is from stopping youth, young people, from smoking, because once people start smoking it is very difficult to stop them from smoking, because of the addiction.
One of the strong points made to us was the strong relationship between price and consumption - there's a reverse relationship, and this has a larger impact on youth.
We asked some questions of these experts: What about the smuggling aspect? Can you help us to ensure that the prices in the States go up? What have you done to try to help prices go up in the States? One of the responses we got was that in fact some states have higher taxes than we do in Canada and that in a lot of ways the U.S. is making more progress than we have.
This was the presentation by Dr. Andrew Pipe, who came forward. I wonder if you could respond to those. I agree very much with the emphasis on young people, where we would benefit the most in the longer term if we can reduce the smokers.
Mr. Dingwall: Mr. Chairman, in response to my colleague, I want to assure him that I'm fully aware of Dr. Andrew Pipe. I had the distinct honour of being thanked by this gentleman at a conference here in Ottawa. He did it with great eloquence and great passion, and I will forever be remindful of that occasion.
.1000
But the honourable member is quite right. It's not the legislation or the policy, but the result of the legislation and the policy that is the most important thing.
I want to be very clear with my colleague. It is not only the role of the federal government. Hopefully this legislation - and I'm confident it will be effective - will trigger debates in schools, among sporting groups and cultural groups, and among all of the various players across our country. I hope we will see more municipalities like Vancouver and Toronto and more private sector companies like McDonald's, Safeway, Air Canada and Avis come to the forefront in terms of non-smoking and the effects of tobacco consumption.
There is a major role for all of us to play if in fact we want to achieve the results. We at the federal level think we are playing our role.
But you're quite right: results are the most important thing. And we want to work in partnership with all of those groups to obtain those results.
In terms of reducing the number of smokers, yes. Keep this in mind. It is my understanding from the evidence that has been provided to me that in order to sustain some of the practices that are out there from an economic perspective, in excess of 100,000 new smokers are needed each and every year.
I suggest to this committee that they're not going to get them from the ranks of your grandmothers or your fathers or your mothers. Where are they going to get those smokers? They're going to get them from the ranks of young people. It is our intention as part of this legislation and policy, and in cooperation with many others, to reduce the number of smokers, particularly young people.
In regard to nicotine, yes, we have the authority and we have the scientific evidence. We're not prepared because we're still gathering additional scientific evidence.
In terms of price and consumption, you're right. The larger the price the more apt the cigarette consumption rate of young people is to drop. That's what our studies show, and that's why I think the very valid comment from my colleague from the Reform was made, but we had to have a balance there.
The Chairman: Thank you, Minister.
We have a little time remaining, and with the cooperation of members I'd like to get a complete second round. If you stay close to the clock we can do it.
We welcome a member of Parliament who is not a regular member of the committee, and we're glad to have him here. He's the member from Prince George - Bulkley Valley, Dick Harris.
It would normally be Mr. Dubé's turn right now but he has kindly agreed to switch positions because Mr. Harris has another commitment outside the room shortly. So we'll do it in this order: Dick Harris, Antoine Dubé, Bob Speller and Paul Szabo.
Dick, go ahead.
Mr. Harris (Prince George - Bulkley Valley): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Minister, I want to start by congratulating you on your initiative on this bill, which you may find unusual, coming, as it does, from Reformers. But you saw the support we gave to this bill yesterday in the House. And we certainly appreciate government initiatives that move in a positive direction.
I just want to question you quickly on a couple of things. One thing we have noticed and recent studies have shown is that in the last two years there's been a significant increase in smoking among young people in Canada. This is disturbing to everyone, and I'm sure it's most disturbing to you.
However, it is very coincidental that this increase in smoking among young people in the last two years seems to have had some direct relation to the lowering of the price of cigarettes in the government's effort to combat smuggling, and you know, of course, that we didn't agree that was the way to go. I have a real problem in that it appears the government itself, through the taxation policies it introduced two years ago, has actually contributed to the increase in smoking among young people.
From your point of view as the Minister of Health - whose responsibility is the health of Canadians - why have you not been able to separate your responsibilities and leave the policing of smuggling to the Minister of Justice's department and/or to the Solicitor General's department? Why is there this marriage of the two departments? It almost seems like a contradiction in thinking. You want Canadians to be healthy, and yet the justice department is saying that if Canadians are going to be healthy, we have to keep the price of cigarettes down, because if we didn't it would increase smuggling. It's very confusing to a lot of people as to why we have this sort of conundrum here. Could you comment on that?
.1005
Mr. Dingwall: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank my colleague and I certainly want to thank members of the Reform Party as well for their support and for being non-partisan in this very important health matter.
I do want to be clear with my colleague. It was always acknowledged, even in the debates of 1994, that lower prices would probably trigger more smoking. I think we acknowledged that in the debates when we brought forward measures to control smuggling. But smugglers were on such a rampage back in 1994, and it became so overpowering and so pervasive that not only were our health goals being attacked, we were finding that from a commerce point of view and from the industry's point of view it was just a menace to society and it called for very Draconian measures. As a result, the policy of that time was instituted.
I want to be clear here. The honourable member is correct. There are linkages and there is cooperation among the different federal departments, but the Solicitor General - who is responsible for the RCMP - the Minister of Revenue, and the Customs officers have been provided with resources in order to continue their efforts with regard to curtailing smuggling. They have been effective and they will continue to be effective because we've provided the resources for them to be effective.
It has been a balance. We're bringing the price back up gradually, but at the same time we're watching very carefully what is taking place in smuggling. With smuggling, smoking is much cheaper, and we find that more people smoke as a result of the smuggling because it becomes so cheap. But it's been a balanced act.
One can argue, effectively at times, that maybe we should jack up the price a little bit higher or maybe we should lower this, but it's a balancing act based upon the best intelligence of the RCMP.
The Chairman: Mr. Dubé.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Minister, as much as we concur with the objectives of this bill, we in the Bloc Québécois find ourselves in the opposing camp concerning a specific aspect as proposed by you up until now. I am speaking of the issue of sponsorships. I hope that your are as aware as I am of the negative economic consequences that may well occur if the restrictions you have proposed are maintained. In reality, you are not prohibiting sponsorships, since you fear that the Supreme Court will prevent you from doing so. You are allowing them, but in an extremely limited proportion,10 per cent. That raises certain questions.
First of all, can you show us any evidence that there is a link between the increase in tobacco use and the fact that a cultural or sporting event attended by adults was sponsored by a tobacco company? What proof do you have of this? It's extremely important.
.1010
We're talking about some 60 million dollars for all of Canada, including 30 million dollars for Quebec. In the Montreal region alone, the festivals and the Grand Prix generate 2,878 jobs. I hope you are aware of that economic dimension. I'd like to hear you say what you intend to do about this. Will you recommend to your colleague, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, that she should provide some compensation, remembering that since no proof has been established, we cannot agree with you on this aspect.
I have another brief question about an issue that is controversial worldwide. You know that debates have taken place in Australia, in France, just about everywhere. At the Montreal Grand Prix, will you allow the name of a tobacco company to appear on the side of a race car? Yes or no?
Ms France Pégeot (Acting Director, Office of Tobacco Control, Department of Health): To answer your first question regarding the link between sponsorship and tobacco use, I will start by explaining the process that leads someone to smoke or not to smoke. It's a rather complex process that takes place over a certain period of time.
Here is what is particularly important among the young who are at the experimental stage. A youngster starts by...
Mr. Dubé: Excuse me, but that was not my question. My first question is simple: Can you demonstrate that for adult audiences, the restrictions on sponsorship can translate into a reduction in tobacco use? Does the contrary situation, the one that prevails currently, which allows such sponsorship, increase tobacco use? What scientific proof or social marketing evidence can you provide us with? That is the question. Don't tell me about the whole process. I've read up on this and Canadian and Quebeckers are aware of it. We agree with this aspect concerning the young. We're talking about an event for adults and the influence of sponsorship.
Ms Pégeot: If promotion is restricted and accessible only to adults, we believe that such a restriction will contribute to reducing tobacco use among the young. Sponsorship creates a link between an event that is popular, cool and attractive to the young and a product that kills 40,000 people a year in Canada. By reducing the link between this product and attractive events, we are changing the environment and this has an influence on the young when they decide whether or not to smoke.
Mr. Dubé: Your answer does not satisfy me. On what study or what data is this based? You're talking about your convictions and your impressions.
[English]
Mr. Dingwall: Mr. Chairman, the honourable member has asked very important questions, but he's asked about eighteen of them -
The Chairman: And he left you fourteen seconds to answer them.
Mr. Dingwall: Yes. He's made an observation, and I know he does this not in any partisan way, but he talks about the financial contributions that companies make to different cultural groups. I wish to acknowledge that they do so, and there are studies that have acknowledged the same thing.
The Canadian Conference of the Arts talked about the contributions to, for instance, the Montreal Symphony Orchestra, where 2.4% of their funding comes from tobacco companies. L'Opéra de Montréal gets 0.3%. The orchestra called Nouvel Ensemble Moderne, from Montreal, gets 3.3% of their revenues from tobacco. So I think we have to be very careful.
The honourable member is looking at his aide and shaking his head. I'll table the report that was produced, but the fact of the matter is that they fire these figures around without any body of statistical evidence to support them. That is not to suggest that these revenues are not important, but they're not important to the extent that people are alleging in the media.
With regard to the final question in terms of having the brand name on the particular item, the answer is no. And I say this to the honourable member: in France sponsorships are banned; in Germany sponsorships are banned; in New Zealand they're banned; and in the United States they're banned.
The Chairman: The member for Haldimand - Norfolk -
Mr. Dubé, is it a point of order?
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Point of privilege.
[English]
The Chairman: We can't deal with privilege in committees. Is it a point of order?
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: I asked a question.
.1015
Are you able to demonstrate the fact that sponsorships appearing in facilities where adult-oriented events are held has any influence on tobacco use? Is there or is there not a study that proves that this has an effect? Neither the Minister's representatives nor the Minister have been able to answer. I repeat: Do you have any studies that prove there is a link, yes or no?
[English]
The Chairman: Order. This is not a point of order. Mr. Dubé has put a question. It's the option of the witness to answer or not to answer a question. We've already exhausted over seven minutes of a five-minute time slot. If the minister has the briefest of answers, by all means, but let's get on with the show.
Mr. Dingwall: In answer to his question, is there, yes, there is a link between advertising and consumption. The authority is the Supreme Court of Canada, which affirmed the decision of the trial division of the superior court.
The Chairman: I say to Mr. Dubé and others, if you're going to use spurious points of order to debate, we're going to have a lot of fun here this morning.
Bob Speller.
Mr. Speller: Thank you, Mr. Chair. In my short five minutes I'll ask the minister a question. I'll ask his departmental officials a question once he leaves.
I want to ask you about your capacity as the regulator under these clauses. There is concern in my area. As you understand, I represent tobacco growers - 800 of them, in fact - in my riding. It's their position, and it has always been their position, that if Canadians are going to smoke, they should be smoking Canadian tobacco.
About the regulatory powers you're going to pick up under this bill, do we regulate other products in the same way? Is this something out of the ordinary? Is this something you feel will help, in your capacity as the Minister of Health, to stop smoking?
RJR-Macdonald sent out a fax overnight. I got it this morning. It says:
- Regulatory powers - the Bill enables and requires the government...to enact extensive
regulations which are not subject to review by Parliament.
- Is that true?
- Penalties are extreme - any person can accumulate full penalties for each day that an offence is
committed. A sign visible for 30 days is punishable by 60 years in prison.
- I'm wondering also if that's the case.
Ms Ferguson: About regulation of nicotine, there are studies, and we would have to do research of our own, to assess what the impact of lower rates of nicotine would be. Nicotine is the addictive substance of tobacco products. It's what gives people the buzz; the hit. With every draw, it takes seven seconds for the nicotine to reach the brain. There are different strengths of nicotine within various brands of cigarettes, as you know. One of the things we would want to ensure is that if we do adjust the level of nicotine we wouldn't be encouraging some kind of compensatory behaviour whereby people would smoke more or they would attempt to get their supply of higher-level-nicotine cigarettes elsewhere. It's not something we are contemplating doing in the immediate future. Clearly research would have to be done to make sure, as I said, we wouldn't inadvertently create negative health consequences or trigger economic impacts that are undesirable.
Mr. Dingwall: Mr. Chairman, I have two other comments. My colleague talked about the offences contained in the bill. The offences primarily proceed on the basis of a summary conviction offence. I think there are two exceptions to that that are indictable, as is not uncommon in a particular act.
About Parliament being denied the opportunity to review regulatory matters, this is a false understanding of the democratic process we have as parliamentarians. Notwithstanding any regulation that is consulted on, thereafter gazetted, thereafter consulted on again, and that thereafter comes into law, Parliament always has the right at any time, either through the various committees in this particular House, the House of Commons, or indeed through the other House, the Senate, to review one and all of the regulations or to review the bill, the enabling piece of legislation, which constitutes that particular regulation.
.1020
Finally, I should say to my colleague, because I know of his interest in the tobacco growers and in particular the effect this might have on them, it is our contention that this legislation does not have any effect on tobacco growers. In point of fact, if you were to look under the definition clause of the bill, clause 2, the particular one that makes reference to manufacturers, you will find that tobacco growers are not part of that definition. Therefore they are not within the ambit of this particular piece of legislation.
The Chairman: Paul Szabo.
Mr. Szabo (Mississauga South): Thank you, Mr. Minister, for appearing before the committee.
I agree with you 100% that we're talking about a health issue. I think by and large this legislation addresses the health components and gives us some of the tools we're going to need to do the job. My one area of questioning would be not on labelling but on the fact that the federal government's responsibilities are the protection of the Canada Health Act and the principles of the Canada Health Act, and the delivery of our health system is a provincial jurisdiction. Indeed, if you went even further, you would find that regional and municipal governments also have a role to play in the ripple effects or impacts of tobacco use. Even at the municipal level, they are the ones who have to clean up the butts from all the smokers who think the earth is the ashtray.
I would like to know, Minister, if it is your intent to assemble the premiers of the provinces or their provincial health ministers, the provincial medical officers of health, the Canadian Medical Association, the Addiction Research Foundation, the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, the mayors of each and every member of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, to stand with you and finally take this start on dealing with tobacco. We have had false starts in the past, and I don't think we can afford to have any more failed attempts to deal with the health issues of tobacco. Is it your intention to surround yourself with a consortium of virtually all the leaders of Canada and not just sports figures saying fancy slogans to kids?
Mr. Dingwall: Mr. Chairman, it's another substantive question. I say to my colleague that in his reference to how we at the federal level are responsible for the Canada Health Act he is correct, and that provinces have responsibility for the delivery of health care in this country I concur. But I go one step further. There are some who would attempt to suggest the federal government has very little role in the health field. I know the member didn't say that, but I want to be clear that my understanding, my reading, of the Constitution is that the Government of Canada does play a major role in the health field of this country. We do it in a variety of ways. You're seeing a piece of legislation here today that dictates a major role.
The member is quite right - absolutely right - and we are endeavouring to do that. Less than 48 hours ago New Brunswick came out in support of the Government of Canada initiative. They are introducing their own program in the province of New Brunswick. Saskatchewan has come out in support of our initiative. In the province of Quebec real leadership is being shown by the provincial Minister of Health, Mr. Rochon, who has indicated he wishes to come with a comprehensive package on smoking - and quite rightly, because 11,000 Quebeckers die from tobacco consumption each and every year.
But on the broader question, yes, we need provincial governments, we need municipalities, we need the private sector, we need NGOs, we need sports figures; we need everybody talking about this issue. But more than talking about this issue is buying some ownership in the issue. As my colleague from the Reform Party said, we need to try to get programs for relatively small money, programs that are effective and achieve the results we all want. That's a very valid intervention, and I hope to move on that as well.
.1025
The Chairman: I want to thank members of the committee for their cooperation this morning. We've managed to get through this session pretty much on time. We made a commitment to the minister to have him out of here about this time because he had another commitment.
Mr. Dingwall, we thank you very much for coming here this morning. I think the session has proven to be very useful, and we will continue in a few moments by hearing from your officials.
The committee will now take a two-minute break, but before we do, the minister has something he'd like to say.
Mr. Dingwall: Yes, if I may, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Order, please.
Mr. Dingwall: I appreciate it very much. There has been some concern. I just want to reassure members that if they think there are amendments that would be valuable for this piece of legislation, I would be very open to those amendments. I would be happy to look at them in a very positive and very constructive way. So let me say to my colleagues from whatever political party that I would be happy to look at those amendments even before they're discussed in this room or in the House to give you some indication as to how we can move some of these things along.
We're looking at the possibility of clearing some of our language up, if you will, and I just want to give the committee members notice of this on clauses 10 and 13 of the bill. Under paragraph 18(2)(b) we want to clarify any language that we might have there. We don't want to disturb people unnecessarily.
I'm very much open to constructive suggestions in terms of amendments. If my department staff can be helpful in any way in the drafting and the clarifying of the language, I would be only too happy to make them available to the committee, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you, Minister. That last comment was particularly helpful, and we shall be guided by it. Again, thanks for coming.
We stand recessed for just two minutes, please.
.1028
.1035
The Chairman: Order please.
We'll reconvene the meeting.
In a moment we'll recognize the witnesses who are with us from the Department of Health. I just wanted to say one or two things briefly to put this issue a bit in focus.
We've just had an hour or so with the minister dealing with Bill C-71. We should remind ourselves of what brought us here this morning. The committee had to quickly convene a meeting yesterday - once the House had dealt with Bill C-71 on second reading, a little sooner than some of us had anticipated - for the purpose of determining how to deal with this in committee and in what timeframe.
I understand it's the government's intention to give priority to the passage of the bill. The committee yesterday agreed to help facilitate that objective. I mention that in the context of something that was said here this morning by one of the members. We took a deliberate decision yesterday to help facilitate the process, hence the relatively short timeframe as far as public hearings are concerned.
I've been of the view for a long time that we don't need to drag out this particular process. We don't need to rush it either, but we don't need to drag it out. Anybody over three years of age has known this legislation was coming for the last 14 months. Anybody with a direct vested interest on either side of the issue will have had ample opportunity to cogitate as to what kind of legislation it ought to be or ought not to be.
So I don't think I'm going to spend much time buying the argument that people were caught with their pants down or didn't have time and so on and so forth. The people out there on both sides of the issue not only knew this was coming and have some views on the issue, but in pretty specific detail can tell you what kind of legislation they would or would not like to see.
We've arranged our committee schedule to hear from the minister and officials today and to leave until Monday the opportunity to hear from other witnesses. That gives the potential witnesses an extra three or four days to get their thoughts together, if they so desire.
I want to draw your attention finally to the last point the minister made before he left here a few minutes ago, that he is open to suggested amendments. As a committee, we ought to focus on that in time, because it seems to me the objective is the same here: to find the best possible legislation. The lawyers and others at Health Canada have had a run at this, and what we have in front of us is draft legislation, but it can be improved. If it can be improved, let's hear from witnesses and from members of the committee. At the end of the day, we ought to send back to the House the best possible proposed legislation.
Now, let's go to the task at hand. We welcome from the department the director general for health policy and information, Judy Ferguson. Welcome, Judy. You were actually beside the minister a moment ago, but we now welcome you and your colleagues.
Do you have an opening statement?
Ms Ferguson: No, I don't.
The Chairman: If you will introduce your colleagues, we can go directly to questions. We'll pick up as though it were a new session with a round of ten minutes and then a round of five minutes.
Ms Ferguson: With me is Bill Maga from the health policy division, France Pégeot from the office of tobacco control, and Murray Kaiserman, also from the office of tobacco control.
.1040
The Chairman: First the member for Lévis and then the member for Calgary Centre.
Mr. Dubé.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Can I use my time to ask brief questions and group them together?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Dubé: Why did you call this the ``Tobacco Act''? That creates a bit of a problem, because when you say "tobacco", that can also concern tobacco producers even though it says the opposite in the legislation. It's clear that the purpose of the legislation is to control the selling of advertizing and tobacco products. Why did you only refer to tobacco?
Ms Pégeot: There are many reasons for this. First of all, it was short and simple and in parallel with other legislation, such as the Food and Drugs Act. Secondly, the legislation affects various aspects of tobacco control, the product itself, access, promotion and labelling. Therefore, we felt that the title properly reflected the content of the legislation. Lastly there are also provincial laws as you probably know which concern tobacco; they refer to tobacco control and regulations. We wanted to distinguish our legislation from provincial laws.
Mr. Dubé: Let me jump ahead to clause 7, which stipulates that the Governor in Council may make regulations establishing standards for tobacco products, etc. I would like you to explain what ``prescribing the amounts of substances'' means.
Ms Pégeot: That means that when toxicological knowledge or social science knowledge about the level of use of the product will evolve, or if a new product comes on the market and the Governor in Council believes that this product should not be on the Canadian market, this power will enable the Governor in Council to prescribe the amount of substances.
For instance, this could be nicotine, carbon monoxide contained in smoke or tar contained in tobacco and smoke. The prescription of amounts of substances allowed will mean that the product can be relatively safe. These measures will only be taken when the Governor in Council is convinced that they must be in order to protect the health of Canadian men and women.
Mr. Dubé: I would like to draw the attention of my colleagues and the Chair to the fact that it is an act of good faith to allow the minister to regulate this way for such a long time. We can take the current Minister's word, and he may move in one direction, but there could be a change some day and the new minister may change his mind. It is possible that he may decide not to intervene as long as the proof has not been established. It can go either way. He could take action, but he is not telling us when he will do so. We're giving powers to a minister without being certain that he will truly act on them.
I'm being the devil's advocate here. Let's imagine a minister who is only doing this for election purposes. He has the legislation passed, but after that, things keep going as they always have. This would make for nice speeches, but it does not guarantee that the regulations will be passed. As a legislator, I don't like this lack of clarity, these grey zones. I don't like giving too much flexibility to a minister.
Ms Pégeot: This kind of power exists in other legislations administered by the department, more particularly the Food and Drugs Act or the Hazardous Products Act. This kind of power did not exist before for tobacco products and it was judged necessary that this kind of power could be exercised. If science evolves and gives us the necessary knowledge that would allow the Governor in Council to take certain steps so that the product becomes safe, or if a product is put on the market and, for all kind of reasons, is really judged to be unacceptable for Canadians from a health point of view, the Governor in Council, at that time, should take these kinds of steps. It is his responsibility.
.1045
Mr. Dubé: I have another problem. My colleague from the Reform Party brought it up but they don't do that often. It has to do with jurisdiction. We're in the area of health.
You know that according to the Constitution, health comes under provincial jurisdiction but the provinces have accepted to have the federal government intervene in some areas, such as product imports, animals and so on, areas that could have an impact on health. If the minister issues strict regulations while the provinces would wish less strict regulations, as there would be a jurisdictional problem, would the province be found right constitutionally speaking or, according to you or your department, would it be the federal Minister of Health? In the latter case, the provinces involved would have to submit to the federal regulations.
Ms Pégeot: First of all, I would like to remind you that the Supreme Court, when it rendered its decision in September 1995, validated the federal government's power concerning the control over tobacco products and said that those elements all came under the jurisdiction of the Criminal Code.
The proposed legislation takes the place of minimum standards for the whole country. If the provinces then want to have more restrictive regulations, they're free to do so.
As for the regulations, the way in which...
Mr. Dubé: But what if they want the opposite?
Ms Pégeot: When this legislation has precedence, as I was saying, it will establish a minimum standard for the whole country. As for the regulations, to answer your question specifically, we always write those up in consultation with the interested groups, especially the provinces. In fact, we have a working relationship that I would say is excellent in the area of tobacco addiction control. We regularly have meetings with our provincial colleagues, such as those from Quebec, with whom we have been in rather close contact recently.
For example, in the area of implementation of the legislation, we have reached contribution agreements with the provinces on that matter. Before passing a regulation, we make sure the provinces have been consulted.
Mr. Dubé: I'll take your word for that. But why not spell out in the legislation that since, as you say, this is a ``shared'' jurisdiction, the minister before passing a regulation will consult or obtain the agreement of his provincial health department colleagues?
Ms Pégeot: This legislation comes under federal jurisdiction. The matter of consultation is more political and legislative in nature. It is an established process. Treasury Board has policies and ensures that the department follows them when developing regulations. That necessarily implies consultation with the stakeholder groups, especially the provinces. It's a matter that is more political than legislative in nature.
Mr. Dubé: I don't share your views on that. The Supreme Court looked at the constitutional aspect. You don't grant much importance to the Constitution when you qualify this matter as being ``political''. The Constitution remains above our laws. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms that has been there since 1982 is not just peanuts. It's because of that Charter that the Supreme Court has in fact struck down some laws. So you can't say that it's just political.
Ms Pégeot: I'm sorry, I probably didn't express myself clearly. I wanted to say that the Supreme Court confirmed federal jurisdiction over tobacco addiction control and control of tobacco products.
Mr. Dubé: In what case?
Ms Pégeot: Maybe the lawyers with me could help me, but I don't think it's appropriate to put into a piece of legislation that we will consult with the provinces before issuing regulations. It's a procedure we generally undertake regularly.
.1050
Mr. Dubé: I'll help you. Having sat on the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, I can tell you that many acts we examined indicated that the minister, in areas touching on education, had to have the agreement of the Lieutenant Governors in Council of the provinces. I could give you all kinds of examples. Why is no such provision made this time?
Ms Pégeot: I could repeat what Mr. Dingwall said just before leaving. If it's one of the amendments you'd like to make to the bill, could I suggest that you submit it to us?
Mr. Dubé: Count on me. I can see the Chair is letting me go on. I have another question for you. Concerning the burden of proof, subsection 53(2) on page 19 states:
(2) in a prosecution for an offence referred to in subsection (1), the burden of proving that an exception, exemption, excuse or qualification prescribed by law operates in favour of the accused is on the accused and the prosecutor...
the prosecutor being the department
- ...is not required except by way of rebuttal, to prove that it does not operate...
Ms Pégeot: You are right, and this subsection changes nothing in the matter of burden of proof that you have just mentioned. In fact, this provision already existed in the old legislation, in the Tobacco Products Control Act.
Mr. Dubé: But that law does not exist any more.
Ms Pégeot: No, but it's a provision that has always existed and never created any problems. This kind of provision can also be found in other acts. As I have said, it doesn't change anything concerning the burden of proof.
Mr. Dubé: Before, there were prosecutions and people's defence was...
[English]
The Chairman: Please, order. Save your question for the second round, if you don't mind.
We're now going to hear, in this order, from the member for Calgary Centre, Jim Silye, and the member for Haldimand - Norfolk, Bob Speller.
Mr. Silye: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to pick up on the minister's suggestion that he's open to amendments if we look at the clauses and try to improve upon them.
Clause 24 doesn't really make sense, in my opinion. In fact paragraph 24(1)(a) says promotion is fine so long as it is associated with young persons or if young persons are its primary beneficiaries. Isn't that just the opposite of what you're trying to achieve?
Ms Ferguson: I know that's how it appears, but this should be read in the context of clause 19. Clause 19 is a broad prohibition on the promotion of tobacco brand-related elements except as authorized by the regulations. Then you go to clause 24 and it sets out the context that would be applied, through subclauses 24(2) and 24(3).
Mr. Silye: But it gives permission for persons to display it.
Ms Ferguson: It says if you promote the person, entity, event or activity and if it is associated with young persons or if it is lifestyle, then subclauses 24(2) and 24(3) would apply. In that case, if it's lifestyle- or youth-oriented, then the 90%-10% provision would apply as well as the restrictions on where that 90%-10% provision could be used.
So it's a bit layered. You have the broad prohibition in clause 19. Then it indicates you can promote, but if the promotion is reasonably construed to appeal to youth or if it has a lifestyle connotation, then that promotion would be restricted, with the brand name relegated to the bottom 10% of the promotional material and the promotional material itself restricted to publications by mail, adult publications and -
Mr. Silye: So you would recommend leaving that as is, then, based on your answer.
Ms Ferguson: We've gone through this very carefully with the drafters, and they feel it's fine.
Mr. Silye: Okay.
What is the potential scope of clause 25:
- 25. If a tobacco product-related brand element is part of the name of a permanent facility, the
tobacco product-related brand element may appear on the facility in accordance with the
regulations.
The way I understand the regulations, you're allowed 10% of the package size; 10% or whatever. It might be a little extreme, but if the CN Tower is renamed du Maurier Tower, for instance, or Rothmans Tower, would it be legal to depict a 500-foot tobacco brand on the facility, and if not, why not?
Ms Ferguson: What we are attempting to do here is to limit the association of the brand name with lifestyle and youth-oriented promotions. It may be a little difficult to argue that the CN Tower is lifestyle- or youth-oriented, but we would have the regulatory authority to restrict the use of that name so it is not pervasive, so it is not so prominent that it continues to reach youth. It's the exposure of the brand name we are trying to control.
Mr. Silye: Under what aspect would you regulate the size of the name of the tobacco brand?
Ms Ferguson: That would be something we could look at, but because it's a regulatory provision we would consult with the industry and we would consult with the other parties affected.
Mr. Silye: This is the openness you've allowed within the bill -
Ms Ferguson: That's correct.
Mr. Silye: - to negotiate particular issues that come up.
Ms Ferguson: With the CN Tower or any other building that has the name of a tobacco brand in it we would be able to regulate by this provision the size of the sign, the number of signs, and where it's located.
Mr. Silye: On paragraphs 22(2)(a) and (b) and 24(3)(b), relating to advertising in magazines or literature, why has the government not identified the specific percentage of adult readership? The bill basically just targets an adult at a residence, if it's mailed to the person. Why not talk about a readership with a percentage component of 60%, 55%, of adults, and then they can advertise, and if it's less than that they can't?
Ms Ferguson: Again, that would be set out in the regulations. What we are considering at this stage is an 85%-15% split. If it has more than 15% youth readership it wouldn't qualify as an adult publication.
Mr. Silye: On subclause 53(2), my colleague from the Bloc brought this up: burden of proof. I happen to agree with my colleague from the Bloc. I think that clause can be misconstrued. I think the burden of proof should be on the accusers, not on the.... You're innocent until proven guilty. I think the prosecution should have a role to play in that. I won't dwell on that any more, because you have already answered that question, but just for the record, that's where we sit on that as well. I do think you should either clarify that or make it clear that you're innocent until proven guilty.
Ms Ferguson: We are told by Justice that this provision in no way disturbs the presumption of innocence. But we can always take another look at the wording to ensure it's not problematic.
Mr. Silye: If I go to court and somebody files a claim against me, they have to say I'm charged with this because I contravened such-and-such, and then the Crown has to prove I've broken a law. Then I defend myself. But if the Crown can just make me come to the court and it says ``you broke this law'' and I didn't break this law, the burden of proof is on me, and that's not right.
Ms Ferguson: I can ask the Department of Justice to elaborate.
Mr. Chris McNaught (Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Health): Good morning.
Mr. Chair, I'm not offering a legal opinion. I'm attempting, as Ms Ferguson indicated, to clarify the point somewhat from the point of view of the draft provision.
As was indicated, exactly the same provisions, except under a different number, appear in the Tobacco Products Control Act and received vetting before the enactment of that act and have received no objections since. However, the honourable member's essential consideration is a very understandable one, perhaps especially because of the marginal note, Burden of proof on accused. That may be somewhat misleading. Although it's not my province to suggest it, that might be the subject of a review with a view to amendment of the marginal note.
But the fact is that if you look very closely at subclause 53(2), you will see that the burden of proof referred to references an ``exception, exemption, excuse or qualification''. In fact it does not refer to innocence or guilt. The primary and continuing burden on the Crown, as in all criminal offences, remains to prove the offence, and prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, against the accused person.
.1100
Mr. Silye: I'll just end with a suggestion by one of my assistants. Why not save a lot of paper and just have the act say, ``Pursuant to the regulations, the Governor in Council may regulate anything to carry out the purposes of this act''.
Mr. McNaught: I think that probably ends my response on that point.
Mr. Silye: My next question is on subclause 15(2). Why is the requirement of information on product leaflets discretionary to the regulations - line 33 - if required by the regulations? Why is there ambiguity? It either is required or it isn't. What is the reason for the compromise?
Ms Ferguson: This is something we would want to do a little more study on. We're talking about products other than cigarettes in different kinds of containers or packaging - the possibility of single cigars, for example. We would want to provide health information and look at the effectiveness of leaflets, the contents of the wording and the message. So it's something we are allowing ourselves a bit of latitude on until we've done a few more studies to determine whether they would work.
Mr. Silye: The minister has referred to how clause 10 is going to be improved. That word ``except'' must be a typographical error, and that's what he was referring to. So that's another item.
Just two left, Mr. Chairman, I think.
On subclause 8(1), could an adult who provides a cigarette on request to someone under 18 years of age be charged and fined $3,000? What if I'm the parent of a 16-year-old son and I give him a cigarette?
Ms Ferguson: Technically, it is an offence of the act, but I should emphasize that what we're looking at here is commercial activity. The focus is very much on the retailer. We're not looking at going into the home or protecting the integrity of the family.
Prosecution would be a last resort. If you had a schoolyard situation with an older youth, maybe 19 or 20, selling to kids, it's not something we would want to prosecute, but I think we would look at contacting school or municipal authorities. In a last resort situation, if a young person were acting like a retailer, he or she would be treated as such. Clearly, the emphasis is on commercial transactions.
Mr. Silye: In clause 9, lines 20 and 22, under what circumstances might a retailer be exempted by the regulations of a requirement to post appropriate signs?
Ms Ferguson: That would be in the case of a province that has more stringent requirements than this legislation, which would establish the minimum standard. Ontario, for example, has a minimum age of 19, so its signs would be up as opposed to ours.
Mr. Silye: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Before I recognize Bob Speller, just let me come back to your second-last comment on the question of an adult furnishing a cigarette to another.
In subclause 8(1) it states:
- 8.(1) No person shall furnish a tobacco product to a young person in a public place
Ms Ferguson: That's correct. It is provided for. It is not something -
The Chairman: I picked it up, Judy, because you said you were focusing on the commercial transaction. Clearly, there'd be no commercial transaction here unless the brothers didn't have a good relationship or something. The question is - and I'm not commenting on the merits of it - is it the intention, notwithstanding what you said earlier, to provide for prosecution in that kind of a circumstance?
Ms Ferguson: Yes.
Mr. Silye: Overzealous officers could be a pain in the neck in some communities.
Ms Ferguson: They could be, but it's not something that I think is likely to happen. The inspectors are trained very carefully on the intent of the provisions and how to enforce them.
The Chairman: One of the issues that always concerns me, quite apart from this legislation, is what I dub the mischievous enforcer, the person who gets his or her jollies just enforcing for the sake of enforcing. If he or she can create a fairly bizarre situation in the process, then the jollies are even better.
There's potential for that kind of thing here where you have family members who will technically break the law under subclause 8(1) in that the 19-year-old brother gives to the 17-year-old brother, in a public place, a cigarette. According to subclause 8(1), that would be a breach of the law.
.1105
I could see a zealot having a lot of fun with that one and causing a lot of misery that was never intended under this act.
Ms Ferguson: My colleague from the office of tobacco control who's responsible for the enforcement can elaborate, but it's important to remember that prosecution would be an absolute last resort. There would be a process of warning and warning again before going to the extent of hauling anyone up on charges.
As I mentioned before, the training process for enforcement officers and inspectors is very detailed and very intense, and the intent of this provision would be very clearly spelled out.
Ms Pégeot: I just want to specify first that this would apply only in public places, and that's where the law stops. We don't want to intervene in private dwellings. I just wanted to clarify that.
As well, I would remind you it's always the privilege of the Attorney General of Canada to prosecute. The inspectors are there enforcing the legislation, but when it comes to the prosecution, it's the crown attorney who decides whether or not to prosecute.
As my colleague, Madam Ferguson, just pointed out -
The Chairman: With respect, France, I'm not sure you heard my comment. I'm not sure I conveyed it very well.
Understand where I'm coming from on this. If I had my way, nobody would give cigarettes to anybody at any time. That's not the issue. The issue is whether or not there is potential in subclause 8(1) as proposed for some fairly mischievous behaviour.
I concocted an example for you. You have a 19-year-old brother and a 17-year-old brother on public transit, for example. They're not even going to light up there; the 19-year-old just passes a cigarette to the 17-year-old. As I interpret subclause 8(1), that's a breach of law, or a proposed breach of law.
I'm asking why you need such a broad brush. Isn't there a narrower way that would allow you to do the same thing without creating...? You understand my concern. It's for the mischievous zealot who wants to enforce for the sake of enforcing and create an unnecessary embarrassment for the two people in my concocted example.
Ms Pégeot: I appreciate your concern, Mr. Chairman, and actually that's something we reflected upon before writing this.
The way it is written in the former legislation, the Tobacco Sales to Young Persons Act, which still is in place, actually, it says, ``in the course of a business''. We feel that is too restrictive, because it does not allow us to catch, for example, an older kid or an older person who is reselling tobacco products in a schoolyard.
Mr. Silye: [Inaudible - Editor]...commercial.
Ms Pégeot: Well, that's the problem we have with the commercial situation: it does not apply to cases where somebody is buying cigarettes and reselling them, either in schoolyards or just outside the retail stores. That situation was brought to our attention by the inspectors.
I'll make a parallel to alcohol, for example. A parent can give alcohol to his or her kids in the home, but they cannot do it in a public place.
We've tried to find the best wording to suit our needs with respect to the legislation, and that's what we felt was the most appropriate.
The Chairman: I have to leave for a moment or two. I'm going to invite one of my vice-chairs, the member for Vancouver South, Harb Dhaliwal, to take the chair.
We're now going to hear from the member for Haldimand - Norfolk, Bob Speller, and then the member for Mississauga South, Paul Szabo.
Mr. Speller: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I guess that's why we have officials here: to go through all this with us and let us know exactly what's in here. As a legislator myself, I look at that and don't really understand some of the implications.
From what I gather from this last discussion, it was specifically your intent to draft it this way so you would catch the 19-year-old brother who provides cigarettes to his 17-year-old brother.
Ms Ferguson: I guess it's a question of how you want to interpret the word ``catch''. What we are also doing here is attempting to send a message. Kids look up to role models, and if they see parents or adults providing cigarettes to kids in a public place, it conveys the impression that tobacco use is normal, that tobacco use may be healthy, and that it's no big deal to smoke.
.1110
The comments we've been making thus far about prosecution being the last resort continue to apply, but it is of some concern that by not attempting to capture or catch this problem we are sending the wrong message about tobacco use. We are sending the message that it is okay to smoke and that's not what we want to do at all.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dhaliwal): Mr. Speller.
Mr. Speller: Thank you. I have a few questions, Mr. Chair. As you know, the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board is coming next, so they will ask my growers' questions for me.
I want to go back to this thing that I got overnight - I think all members did - from RJR-Macdonald. I'm not sure if you've seen it. They bring up a couple of other interesting points and I would like your response to them.
Under the heading of ``Product advertising'', they say:
- - the Bill infringes upon rights, affirmed by the Supreme Court, to communicate product and
brand preference messages, by prohibiting brand signage at a point of sale.
- - retailers would lose millions of dollars in contract payments due to the ban on brand signage
and further regulations that limit retail displays.
- - limitations on the ability to promote events using brand names significantly reduces their
commercial value so that major contracts will not be renewed.
Ms Ferguson: With respect to their first point, as I understand it, that brand signage is being prevented at point of sale, promotion is being prevented at point of sale, but display is not. The one thing that the minister did mention briefly in his opening statement is that the blueprint suggested that we limit the display to one package per brand. Through the consultation process we agreed that was not practical, so the display of brand signage will be permitted. It will be regulated and we will discuss with or consult with the industry as to what that display will look like and how big it will be.
With respect to your second point about sponsorship -
Mr. Speller: Yes, it was about retailers losing contract payments.
Ms Ferguson: They are paid by the tobacco companies that have certain displays at point of sale. If you have walked into any convenience store or corner store where tobacco products are sold, you will see that there are a lot of promotional vehicles. There are countertop displays, power walls, and there are even displays laminated onto the floor in front of the cash. We are intentionally restricting this kind of promotion. We don't want to see that kind of promotion. It's pervasive. It does put tobacco out in the public domain as a very attractive product and a very normal product that appeals to kids. This is promotion -
Mr. Speller: What impact will that have on these small retailers?
Ms Ferguson: I don't have the figures.
Mr. Speller: Have you done any studies on it?
Ms Ferguson: I have the figures as to how much, precisely, the tobacco companies are paying the retailers. I suspect it differs from store to store or if it's part of a chain. It depends very much on the industry and whether or not they continue to reimburse the retailers for displaying the actual product as opposed to the product promotion.
Mr. Speller: This letter says they are going to lose millions of dollars. How does that relate to a small retailer in a small town?
Ms Ferguson: This is a rough estimate, but a small retailer may get $1,000 a year to promote at point of sale. I don't have the numbers. As I said, it's something that you may want to ask the industry. They would have the statistics as to what the reimbursement is and what the contractual value of this arrangement is.
Mr. Speller: Finally, on the question of sponsorship, I guess that's the big question in this whole bill.
Ms Ferguson: The tobacco companies will continue to be able to sponsor events and to promote those sponsored events by associating the brand name with the event. We're not attempting to prevent that or suggest to the companies who they can sponsor and who they can't.
We feel that the degree of exposure that is provided through the 90%-10% rule is reasonable. We're attempting to limit the profile of the brand name and its prominence, and we're attempting to limit the pervasiveness because of its appeal to youth. We believe the scope provided is reasonable.
.1115
Mr. Speller: Finally, Mr. Chair, I want to go back to the whole question of regulating nicotine levels. I'm not sure if the minister answered my question or not in terms of what studies are out there to show the effects of regulating nicotine. I'm thinking again in terms of my growers, who would want to make sure that if we regulated nicotine, first of all that people didn't go south of the border to buy the cigarettes because then they could get the nicotine hit.
Secondly, if we regulated nicotine in this act and told the companies they have to reduce the nicotine, what impact will it have on our growers, who provide that tobacco at a certain nicotine level?
Ms Ferguson: I have two comments, and then perhaps I'll turn to Murray Kaiserman to give a little bit more of the physiological discussion.
The minister indicated that the regulatory process would involve consultation. This is clearly a very, very sensitive area. We wouldn't be inclined to use this authority until we had the scientific data required to be able to assess what the impact would be, both in terms of the behaviour of the smoker.... Would they compensate for a reduced level in nicotine? There have been products put out that have very, very low levels of nicotine, and they haven't been particularly popular with consumers. We would want to avoid any kind of economic impact - smuggling, whatever.
We would also want to make sure that any kind of adjustment in the nicotine levels, and how that particular level may work in concert with other substances in the product, could inadvertently create health effects that are equally deleterious as nicotine. So it's something on which we would need to have all the data - the scientific data and the sociological information - and we wouldn't do it without consulting with the industry and other affected parties like the growers.
Mr. Speller: So there are no studies being done right now?
Ms Ferguson: There are some studies.
Murray, do you want to elaborate?
Mr. Murray Kaiserman (Chemist, Office of Tobacco Control, Department of Health): There is a lot of information available about nicotine and nicotine reduction. The comment was made earlier about smokers smoking for nicotine and inhaling the tar as a by-product. There are basically two schools of thought now. One is to eliminate nicotine, and then people will have no reason to smoke. The other is to go the opposite direction - eliminate the tar and other toxics and provide nicotine. That's the nicotine patch, the nicotine replacement therapy concept.
As Madam Ferguson just mentioned, in the States one of the tobacco companies introduced a product that had no nicotine. It could not compete against all the other products. So it goes from one extreme to other extremes.
We have to remember that over the past 30 or 40 years, nicotine levels have actually come down. Although growers are growing more nicotine-efficient or higher-nicotine-containing tobacco, the nicotine levels in cigarettes have gone down - that's delivered to the smoker. This has been a gradual process.
As Madam Ferguson mentioned and as the blueprint mentions, we're certainly going to discuss this particular issue to ensure that smuggling doesn't occur. It's a big concern of ours.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dhaliwal): Thank you, Mr. Speller.
I will go to Mr. Dubé and then to Mr. Szabo, as the five minutes on our side are up.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: On page 7, subsection 18(2)(b), just at the top of the page, it says:
b) a report, commentary or opinion in respect of a tobacco product or...
The way it's worded and in that context, it's as though it were prohibited. For example, the wording leaves the impression that someone, either an expert or a promoter who, once the law is passed, wanted to talk about that, even if it's just before a committee, during a public meeting, to say that in his opinion it goes too far, would not have the right to express that opinion any more.
.1120
Ms Pégeot: No, that is not the intent of the subsection. You have to read subsection 18(2)b) in the context of the definition of the word ``promotion'' in 18(1). This definition would not at all prohibit the kind of intervention you have just mentioned.
Mr. Dubé: I don't know in what clause, but it says that in the regulations, the only things allowed are those that are authorized by the Act. You say that it's allowed, but it's not written. If it's not written, then it's prohibited.
Ms Pégeot: This paragraph has to do with the application of the Act and what it says...
Mr. Dubé: No, I'm talking about 18(2).
Ms Pégeot: That's it. Subsection 18(2) deals with what the law does or does not apply to. It says that the definition of ``promotion'' does not apply to that kind of activity. So, for example, it does not cover lobbying activity or the activity of people making reports or giving opinions for or against any specific tobacco products.
As a matter of fact, this paragraph was specifically drafted so that the kind of activities you described would not come under the Act.
Mr. Dubé: I had similar reservations concerning clause 21. Line 25 in subclause 21(1) says:
- ... by means of a testimonial or an endorsement...
- That struck me as a bit excessive but if it's taken to refer to the representatives of a tobacco
company merely speaking to people about a particular company or commenting on it without
necessarily advertizing or using a loudspeaker... Would that type of situation be targeted?
Mr. Dubé: It may depend on where you happen to be. Personally I'm not known in Ottawa but I think I am known in my constituency.
Ms Pégeot: Yes, if you were paid by a tobacco company to say that you smoke Rothmans, du Maurier or any other brand, you would then come under section 21.
Mr. Dubé: So it's the fact of being paid that counts. If I did it free, what would happen?
Ms Pégeot: The purpose of the Act is to control the promotion of tobacco products. So whenever the activity is considered to be promotion, it would come under the Act.
Mr. Dubé: Even if I weren't paid to do so?
Ms Pégeot: That depends. You can certainly tell your friends what brand of cigarettes you smoke. That is not a commercial activity. It's not someone with a commercial interest who is asking you to do that.
Mr. Dubé: Don't worry, I'm not a smoker.
Subsection 24(2) deals with the famous 10 per cent. Still working on the assumption that what is not authorized is prohibited, as far as sponsorship is concerned... I'll ask you the question that people put to me so that I can give them answers.
Ms Pégeot: Certainly, you're quite right, any question is legitimate.
Mr. Dubé: Normally the space in sponsorship sites amounts to about 4 x 8 feet. Would it be possible for a tobacco company, since there is no specific reference in the Act, to have a banner ten times as large and thus in actual fact have the same amount of space for advertizing as before, since there is no specific prohibition?
Ms Pégeot: One of the aspects we will be regulating is precisely the size of the billboards allowed on the site, since we want to prevent the type of abuse you've just described.
.1125
Mr. Dubé: Then why not specify it in the Act?
Ms Pégeot: Because it's one of the details we'd like to deal with in the regulations. In this way we will be able to consult the parties concerned to determine what is reasonable taking into account their particular requirements on the site and at the same time respecting our health measures. So this is an aspect we want to deal with through regulations.
Mr. Dubé: In any case, it could be the subject of a long debate. Of course I would have preferred to see it specified in the legislation for the sake of clarity. Anyway, the Minister and his officials will look after that.
Ms Pégeot: The 10% is what is required by sponsors to have a certain recognition.
Mr. Dubé: I'm playing the devil's advocate. Is the bill attempting to avoid an association between celebrities and tobacco? Let me give you an example. I'm thinking of Céline Dion, an internationally known singer, a car racer like Jacques Villeneuve or Donovan Bailey who won the 100 metres race in the Olympic Games. Let's assume they are shown together smoking a cigarette, illustrating that there is no harm caused to their voice or their physical fitness. Is there nothing prohibiting this?
Ms Pégeot: If these celebrities were smoking as part of an obvious promotion for a tobacco product, we'd have to determine how the Act could be interpreted. It could perhaps come under section 21 dealing with testimonials and endorsements.
Mr. Dubé: What about if the people were less well known? My assistant isn't as well known as I am in my constituency, what would happen if he did that?
Ms Pégeot: It all revolves around the interpretation of section 21. Theoretically, 10% of the surface is allowed to identify the sponsors whereas the remaining 90% must be devoted to the event itself. That means there is a certain amount of flexibility.
Mr. Dubé: I have some difficulty with the kind of legislation that attempts to deal with this kind of situation and also leave some room for constraint. I know that if there are not more precise parameters for the 10%, this will leave a great deal of room open for interpretation. It's a significant grey area. I find that rather worrying.
Earlier the Minister told me that a cigarette brand cannot be advertized on a Formula 1 car in the Montreal Grand Prix. It seems to me that you and the Minister have several of these interpretations. It seems clear that you do not want to allow this kind of thing but it is not clearly stipulated in the Act.
Ms Pégeot: The bill makes two points with respect to sponsorship. There is one rule that applies to all kinds of promotional material that will be allowed. It's the 90-10 rule that you referred to. The bottom 10% of the display surface of any promotional material is reserved for identifying the sponsor whereas the remaining 90% is reserved for the event.
The second aspect of the restrictions applies to the location, that is, where advertizing material may be shown. There are four places mentioned in the bill: publications read mainly by adults; publications sent by mail by adults, that is the direct marketing type; on billboards or programs on the site of the event; in signs in a place where young persons are not permitted by law. All this is clearly set out in the bill.
.1130
Mr. Dubé: Yes, and we agree on that. I'd like to know why the figure of 10% was chosen instead of 30%, for example? Is this the practice elsewhere in the world? How did this come about?
Ms Pégeot: The figure of 10% seemed to be a reasonable compromise. We wanted to reduce the amount of display given to the tobacco brand on the sponsorship signs but we also wanted to give sponsors a reasonable amount of space for recognition. The compromise we came up with was 10%. We think that this percentage will make it possible for companies to make known the fact that they sponsor certain types of activities.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Dubé, that five-minute segment took twelve minutes. So what we're going to do now, just to get back at you, is have a couple of Liberals in a row. First, from Mississauga South, Paul Szabo; then from Vancouver South, Harb Dhaliwal; and then, from Newfoundland, me. Then we're going to finish this round of questions.
Mr. Szabo: Could you please tell me the source of the more than 40,000 who die each year?
Ms Ferguson: Health Canada has done its own projections and estimates. Mr. Kaiserman can give you the way it was calculated.
Mr. Szabo: I just wanted the source. I didn't want how it was done.
Ms Ferguson: Okay.
Mr. Szabo: The Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, in their June 1996 report, had a substantially different number, which was about half your number. Are you basically rejecting their numbers?
Mr. Kaiserman: No, actually the number was about 8,000 less. It was at about 32,000 to 34,000.
The difference stems from the way in which the numbers were calculated. In our calculations and those of Health Canada, we use primarily risk estimates from the American Cancer Society's second cancer prevention study, which we felt more closely approximated the Canadian population.
In the study by the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, they made analyses of many studies from around the world, which probably closely approximated the individual countries, not the Canadian population.
Mr. Szabo: Hospitals have very comprehensive reporting systems for provincial health purposes. Why don't we just ask the hospitals how many people went through there who died from tobacco?
Mr. Kaiserman: Basically, the death certificates don't list tobacco as a cause of death. They list lung cancer, heart attacks -
Mr. Szabo: Why couldn't they?
Mr. Kaiserman: That's something the medical profession would have to take up.
Mr. Szabo: I've always been confused about that.
The materials that were circulated to people said that this was a comprehensive and integrated piece of legislation. It says, among other things, that the legislation will: first, further limit youth access to tobacco; second, restrict the promotion of tobacco products; third, increase health information - I stress ``information'' - on tobacco packages; and fourth, establish powers to regulate tobacco products.
As for the aspect of information, I wonder if Health Canada considers information to be the same as, or part of, education.
Given that we're talking about the informational or educational process, can you tell me whether you have any studies or evidence that labelling, or providing information or education on the package of a consumer product, has an impact on the level of consumption?
Ms Ferguson: Yes, we do. We've done a number of studies since the release of the blueprint showing that product labelling is the second most important source after television for this kind of information. Smokers and non-smokers alike feel that labelling is a means of indicating what the health risks of tobacco use are.
There's the fact that the labelling is on the package, which the consumer sees all the time, as a constant reminder of the health consequences of tobacco use. They have told us that they find the messages credible. They believe them.
.1135
They have a fairly high recall rate, and they have indicated that they would like additional information about the toxic constituents of tobacco and tobacco smoke emission, which is what we're doing under this bill.
Mr. Szabo: Okay. But it's part of a comprehensive approach.
Ms Ferguson: Yes, it is.
Mr. Szabo: I think this makes sound judgment. We want to use every legitimate opportunity to communicate, educate and inform.
Let me ask one more question. The minister also said that the direct health cost was $3.5 billion. Again, what is the source of that?
Ms Ferguson: Health Canada.
Mr. Szabo: So it's not people who we think died from second-hand smoke.
Ms Ferguson: No.
Mr. Szabo: They're smokers.
Ms Ferguson: The estimate may include second-hand smoke. We're estimating that it's about 10% of the figure in the United States. We're looking at about 330 ETS mortality rates a year.
Mr. Szabo: What's more important, the number of people who die or the cost?
Ms Ferguson: The number of people who die.
Mr. Szabo: So we're not really sensitive about or driven by the.... It really is the health of Canadians in terms of their persons.
Ms Ferguson: Very definitely, but I think it's useful to remember that premature death also has an economic cost. But it's clearly the human -
Mr. Szabo: I agree with you. I think we're talking about real people. Lives are more important than dollars, if you have to make a choice.
As for this strategy we've taken with regard to tobacco, you're talking about 40,000 lives. Would your strategy change in any way if it was only 10,000 lives?
Ms Ferguson: No, I think we would still be looking at the same kind of balance through taxation measures, public education, legislation and enforcement. I think the more bases we cover, the more effective we would be. So it's not so much a question of how many people, but of the best way of getting at the problem.
Mr. Szabo: It's a real health issue. We want to show a leadership role and make sure that we educate and inform.
Last, Mr. Chair, this subclause 8(1) is a very interesting situation. I think maybe you may have to provide an answer later because it would take far too long, but my only question would be: are there any other clauses in this bill that have the same subtleties as subclause 8(1) in terms of your intent, as opposed to the technical language in the bill?
Ms Ferguson: None spring to mind quite as readily as this one.
Mr. Szabo: But you'll let us know.
Ms Ferguson: Yes, we will.
[Translation]
Mr. Szabo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
The Chairman: The member for Vancouver South, Mr. Dhaliwal.
Mr. Dhaliwal: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to try to get an answer. I did ask the minister, but I didn't get a clear answer. Maybe I didn't ask a clear question, so let me try again, Mr. Chairman.
I asked the minister whether the real results will be an indication as to whether this is successful or not. I wonder whether you have any clear, long-term goals in terms of reducing smokers and what you hope to accomplish by putting this bill forward.
We were told by witnesses that if you look at what we were doing in the past and what other countries are doing, we do have a very comprehensive package. We did have one until we made some of the changes in terms of reducing taxes and all that.
Maybe I wasn't clear before, but my question is: do you have specific goals for the number of smokers out there now as compared to what you may want 10 years from now? Right now, about 25% to 26% of the people smoke. The minister said there are 7 million. So I wonder if you have any clear objectives by which you can evaluate this, so at the end of five years you can say this has been successful and that you're happy with what has happened. Or will you need to readjust this program within five years, when you say that it really hasn't been as effective as you had wanted?
Is there some way that you can evaluate that in the longer term? That's my first question. Maybe you can give me a response to that one. I may not have a second question.
Ms Ferguson: I have a couple of points in response to your question. The goals clearly are to reduce uptake, which is to try to prevent people from becoming smokers. As the minister indicated, 85% of new smokers are under the age of 16, so we're looking at reducing the number of kids who start to smoke.
One of the other objectives of the bill is to help existing smokers quit the habit, so we'd be attempting to promote cessation as well.
But as for an actual number, I guess I would refer you to the Supreme Court decision that said even a small reduction in tobacco use would be of significant benefit.
.1140
Mr. Dhaliwal: But you don't have a clear target saying within five or ten years you want to reach a 20% level, or a 50% level, or hopefully have no smokers at all. Maybe with a ten-year program we won't have any smokers. I've given my solution to the committee and the minister on how we can do that, but they don't listen.
Is there some goal? I would like to think we have some objective we want to see at the end. First of all, obviously we want to see a decline in the number of smokers, but shouldn't we have a goal that we want to reduce the number of smokers by 5% every five years or 1% a year?
I would think we would want to move to a target so that we feel we're getting some results - I would like to see that - where we say that within five years we would like to reduce it by 5%, and maybe within ten years by 10%, and have a long-term goal of reducing it and evaluating ourselves. If we're not accomplishing that, perhaps we have to change the way we're doing these things.
Ms Ferguson: We don't have a specific number in mind. Obviously, the maximum reduction is desirable. We'll be looking at the way the legislation affects the smoking behaviour, particularly among youth. Because we can regulate a number of the provisions, and that allows us some flexibility to respond to what's happening in the marketplace and how people are behaving, if necessary we can adjust.
Mr. Dhaliwal: Let me make a suggestion, Mr. Chairman, that perhaps we should have a goal and we should say that we want to reduce the number of people who are smoking by 1% every year for the next ten years. Maybe we should try, and if we are not achieving that, maybe we should change the program.
I put that forward to your staff, and perhaps to the minister, that we do set up a specific goal for us to meet so we can evaluate that in fact we are accomplishing what we think we want to do. That way, we can also judge ourselves and ask whether we really have accomplished what we want to do.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: We're just about at the end of this particular segment. We're not finished with the meeting, so I don't want anybody to go away yet. But to give you an idea of what's coming up, some of the support staff, including the translators, have other commitments reasonably soon, so it would accommodate everybody if the sitting can be concluded sometime prior to 12:20 p.m. or12:25 p.m.
Insofar as the current segment is concerned, I want to suggest to the committee that we're just about at the end of the trail. I have a couple of questions I want to put, but unless some of you on the committee have other burning questions, I would ask you to restrain yourselves so we can hear the other witness, the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board. I would like to give them 30 or 40 minutes to make their case and to have some questions from the committee. That's where I'm going, if you're with me.
There are so many questions that could be asked, and many have been asked. I have three, in no particular order. Certainly they're not to suggest these are my only concerns or points of interest with the bill, but these haven't been canvassed this morning so I thought I'd raise them.
Let me be devil's advocate on the issue of the 10% of the space as it relates to sponsorship. Is there something that prevents the sponsor from having a real field day with you by putting up a giant billboard with a big blue sky on the top, 90% - or not even a blue sky but something in a grey-white so as not to attract attention - and then have all their message down the front? It's 10% of what? If it's 10% of a sheet this size, that makes it almost unreadable from the distance you are from me now. If it's 10% of a baseball field-type billboard, then.... Is there some restriction? Have you foreseen a way this can be abused?
Ms Ferguson: Yes, we have, and I think we've provided for that possibility.
You indicated, Mr. Chairman, the possibility of a billboard. If there is such a sign, it would be restricted to the site of the event. There would be no off-site sponsorship promotion. The bill does give us the regulatory authority to limit or regulate the size of the actual signage itself so that10% could not translate into something that is two or three storeys high.
.1145
The Chairman: Okay.
I'm looking now, Judy, at clause 12, which deals with the vending machines. Can you tell the committee where vending machines would be permitted under this legislation? Could you give us an example?
Ms Ferguson: Yes. For a place where the public does not reasonably have access, it could be in the kitchen or an office or a storage room of a restaurant or bar. It can be used for storage purposes but it would not be readily accessible to the frequenting public.
The Chairman: For consistency, I just want to know what the rationale is for treating the sale of cigarettes through vending machines differently from the sale of cigarettes per se. Is it a question of access? Is that what you're -
Ms Ferguson: A question of access. The restrictions on minimum age and enforcement of that provision...if the preferred supplies of tobacco for kids - corner stores, gas stations; that sort of thing - become less viable because of the current restrictions, they may turn to less mainstream avenues, and vending machines are one of those possibilities.
The Chairman: For example, if I can draw a parallel that may not be appropriate - you tell me if it's not - when you address the question of advertising, you allow it in magazines aimed particularly at adults. Did you consider allowing vending machines in places frequented only by adults?
Ms Ferguson: Yes, and that's the current provision of the Tobacco Sales to Young Persons Act. The vending machines are restricted to premises such as bars or taverns, where -
The Chairman: Is that the provision here?
Ms Ferguson: No. We've taken it a step further and we've -
The Chairman: That's my question. Why?
Ms Ferguson: Again, because it's a possible avenue of access for youth in particular if their other sources are not as easily available: corner stores and gas stations with these photo ID provisions and restrictions on self-serve; that sort of thing.
The Chairman: I think there's an inconsistency, if I may go back to allowing advertising in certain print media. You're obviously not as concerned about the access to these magazines by those same young people, who can walk into a Maclean's much easier than they can walk into a bar without an ID.
Ms Ferguson: We have been consulting with a number of organizations since the blueprint was released. One of the comments made to us has been that a lot of these facilities - restaurants, bars - use the vending machines for storage purposes. So we're not attempting to ban them altogether but simply, again, to restrict access to them, particularly for youth. The idea of a face-to-face transaction underlies the other measures in the access provision, so we do see a degree of consistency.
The Chairman: My final question relates to the issue that got us here this morning, I guess. That's to say, without a successful court challenge the first time around we wouldn't be here this morning. I hope you have somebody at the table, or near the table, who can address the question. Earlier I noticed the caution of the lawyer who told us he was not going to give us an opinion, rather, he was going to clarify. I hope you have somebody there who is less cautious or who can give us an opinion or at least undertake to find one for us, because surely the overriding question here, given the set of events that brought us here, is how you can be so sure what you've done this time will survive a court challenge under the charter.
Ms Ferguson: The Supreme Court set out some fairly clear directions, some parameters within which the government could act. We have looked at those provisions and we feel the legislation has been crafted - we've taken a lot of care to ensure it has been crafted - to respect the charter. The Supreme Court indicated that tobacco companies have a legal product, that they are entitled to communicate information to adult consumers about that product, and the bill is structured and crafted in such a way as to permit them to do that.
The court also indicated, accepting the evidence that there was a relationship between advertising and consumption and validating the federal government's wherewithal to regulate the promotion of tobacco products, that it would be a reasonable limit on freedom of expression if the promotion is targeted at youth or has a lifestyle connotation. We have taken those parameters and that is how we've crafted the bill, so that any promotion that appeals to youth or is associated with youth or has a lifestyle connotation is an area that is restricted. We feel we have taken a lot of care to reflect the guidance provided by the Supreme Court.
.1150
The Chairman: I'm sure the tobacco manufacturers will say before this committee what they've said to some of us in writing already: that the bill infringes upon rights affirmed by the Supreme Court to communicate product and brand preference messages by prohibiting brand signage at point of sale. What do you say to that?
Ms Ferguson: The court did allow certain alternative approaches. I understand that the tobacco companies have indicated or alleged that this would be a freedom of expression issue. But the court did mention options such as a partial ban on advertising, a ban on lifestyle advertising, measures to prohibit advertising aimed at children and adolescents, as well as health labelling requirements with attribution.
We have taken that advice and have structured the bill accordingly. I can only refer you again to the comment of the Attorney General, who indicated that he was confident that the bill respects the charter. We have worked with the Department of Justice to ensure that this is the case.
The Chairman: Thank you. Are there any last quick ones from the committee?
Mr. Dhaliwal.
Mr. Dhaliwal: I have one question in terms of the taxes that have gone up. Have we just brought up taxes to what they were before they were reduced? What rate are we at now compared with before?
Ms Ferguson: If you want a lot of detail on this, you will have to check with the Department of Finance, but they are not up to the levels they were at pre-1994.
The Chairman: That's putting it euphemistically. I think you ought to be more candid and say that they were reduced by $5 at the federal level and they're up by 75¢ at the federal level. Is that accurate?
Ms Ferguson: I think it's 70¢.
The Chairman: I want to thank Judy Ferguson, the director general, and her colleagues for taking the time this morning. It's been very helpful from where we sit. We do thank you.
We're going to take one minute to allow the transition. Before we do that, let me welcome our colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean, Mr. Tremblay.
.1153
.1157
The Chairman: Order. We'll reconvene now.
We have one other set of witnesses. I mentioned to you earlier that we are under a bit of a time constraint in that the translators have other commitments. We have to conclude no later than12:30 p.m.
I welcome to the table Frank Menich of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board. Why they can't get a simpler name I don't know, but anyway, here they are.
Mr. Frank Menich (Chairman, Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board): First of all, Mr. Chairman, thank you for slotting us in on such quick notice. We became aware of the hearings just yesterday.
The Chairman: The same time we became aware.
Mr. Menich: The implication now is that we also just received the transcript of Bill C-71.
Before I go any further, I would like to introduce my colleague, George Gilvesy, who is a director on the marketing board.
Mr. Chairman, we thought we needed to be here first of all to get some clarification. What concerned us was the speed at which this was going and the implications it had for the growers of Ontario. I suspect our colleagues in Quebec would have the same concerns.
The impact of the bill, as I understand - and tried to have it clarified this morning - is that it has no implication for the growers. I guess that's my first question: to have a clear understanding of whether we are part of this regulation or not. If we can clear that up, then I can probably be briefer rather than longer.
The Chairman: Frank, you have the roles reversed here. We ask the questions. The reason we ask them is that we don't have the answers either.
More kindly, I don't think there is anybody at the table who can answer that question. There was literally two minutes ago somebody at the table who could answer the question. All I have on that issue is what the minister indicated in committee.
Were you here when the minister was here and made that statement?
Mr. Menich: No.
The Chairman: He did make a statement to the effect of what you mentioned a moment ago, that it would not have an impact on the growers. That is the essence of what he said, I believe. If you want a more fulsome answer, we can undertake to find it for you as part of our deliberations. But we can't do it right now.
.1200
Mr. Menich: I guess we'll take it in that direction then. I'll have to just leave some questions and an understanding of how they get answered and what process we're involved in to get those answers.
Maybe I can just go right to one of our concerns. When you have a definition of what a tobacco product is and it includes tobacco seeds and leaves, that has implications on our ability to grow. So if we're included in this, we have a lot of concerns about how we communicate first of all to our growers. As far as correspondence goes, can we be involved in conducting meetings with our growers and improving their production practices? There are a lot of questions. That's why I wanted a little clarification, and I could have saved you a little of the concerns we have.
The ability to include your content regulation, to our understanding, is very open-ended. Our position is that whenever you regulate or legislate to take away from the ability of the producers of Canada to provide the product to Canadian consumers, we believe your legislation or regulation is taking away from the intent that would be in our best interests.
From that point of view, we think we're included by your definition. If so, we want to have it out, quite frankly, because I think the minister has made his comments that there are people who smoke in Canada. We feel it is our right and privilege to provide a product for the Canadian consumer. If there is any change in direction on that point, we wish to be notified of that.
As we understood in all the correspondence we've had over the years, the Canadian farmer should, through good production practices, service the Canadian consumer. We think this bill can jeopardize that through its content - whatever it means - and we don't quite understand where you're going on that. As you have pointed out, there's some open-endedness to this, but I think you have to appreciate that when you change the components or alter what a consumer wants, that consumer is going to try to find it in another area. That's when we object; when you're altering something where your Canadian consumer feels his lifestyle....
In brief, because of the speed at which this was put together, we are very concerned about what the implications are to the growers of Ontario and Canada. That's why we felt we had to be here to voice our concern about the extent to which Bill C-71 is going and the impacts it will have on our ability to service the Canadian consumer.
The Chairman: Before I hear from members of the committee, I would just like to make a brief response. There are two points.
I think you should be careful of the phrase ``the speed with which it was put together''. You may mean the speed at which it's going through the House. That may be your intent. The speed at which it was put together is defined as a 14-month period since the court struck down the legislation. So that is hardly speed in my definition of speed. Anybody and his dog with an IQ of 10.5 or above knew that the Government of Canada was preparing legislation. They should have known that for 14 months, especially anybody with a vested interest like a tobacco grower. So I don't buy that one at all.
.1205
More to the point, I think we should go back to what the minister said this morning. The minister said this bill doesn't address the question of tobacco growing. I guess what he left unsaid - but again you don't need to be a nuclear specialist to figure this one out - is that if the government's campaign is successful there's going to come a day when we will need less tobacco, Canadian or otherwise. So I would think to that extent it will affect your industry, because you'll need to produce less if you market less, and if some people stop smoking down the road. But I don't think that's a brilliant deduction. I think most people would have figured that one out.
We've been searching since you began talking and the bill doesn't appear to address tobacco growers in any fashion. The one question that does come to mind is what if growers advertise tobacco seed in an industry circular? Is that permitted under the law? I don't know the answer to that one. I did see a clause last night when I went through the bill that indicated it was not an offence for purveyors of tobacco products to promote the product to retailers. That's the essence of what's there, and the question I just raised may come in that context. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know that particular issue, but it may be an issue you will want to focus on.
Do you want to respond to that since I took the liberty of rebutting you?
Mr. Menich: If I may. There are a couple of issues you raised. The whole issue of the blueprint, as you pointed out, has been around for a considerable amount of time - 14 months or whatever - but what haven't been around are the regulations themselves and the interpretation of the regulations. If I can use your words, you're not quite sure yourself. If you're not quite sure, that makes me very uneasy.
The Chairman: No, Frank, it should not make you uneasy, because I'm not the expert on the issue. My job here is to chair the committee. I happen to know how to spell tobacco, but I don't know a lot about the issue. I'm here to facilitate a process, not to pose as the expert on the issue. The fact that I don't know should give you no discomfort at all.
Mr. Menich: Would it be fair to say that the fact that the minister did not know where the content was heading and they want to do more gives me discomfort?
The Chairman: Maybe. I'd have to know what your discomfort level is.
Mr. Menich: The point is that's open-ended. We're trying to say - and hopefully it's clear - that for the consumers of Canada, the consumption of tobacco, from our point of view, should not be changed so it would force Canadian consumers to go to other sources outside Canada. If you're not careful you may be measuring so-called success rates that you think are accurate, and tobacco will be supplied by either the U.S. or other sources. We're trying to say you have to be careful how you're interpreting. We don't believe we should be substituted by another country if you alter what the consumer wants.
I think the comment can be explained further. It was mentioned this morning that we were here for the part when they were introducing some tax issues, and I understand that's another point. But we suffered greatly on that whole tax issue with smuggling. We're well aware of what the impact on us will be if legislation changes the consumers' thoughts of Canadian tobacco.
We view this in a similar way. When you introduce regulations that change a consumer's point of view, we're hurt. The definition of tobacco products does include seeds and leaves. It goes right to the point of sale in the options we control.
.1210
Quite frankly, we promote because we're in the business. We're the suppliers. We sell. That's where we're concerned on that definition.
We also communicate to our growers. In our whole area, our communities, there are people who are in the business of manufacturing equipment that carries the name ``tobacco'' - tobacco equipment, fertilizer dealers that supply our farmers, etc. The whole infrastructure, quite frankly, has evolved around tobacco, and we're not embarrassed by it.
The thing is we don't know what implication you have here that affects the infrastructure of our whole community. How do we communicate?
The Chairman: Let me refer the committee and the witnesses to clause 18 of the bill, in particular paragraph 18(2)(c), which says this part does not apply to:
- a promotion by a manufacturer that is directed solely to a person who distributes tobacco
products or a retailer.
- That's the paragraph to which I was clumsily referring just now.
I'm not the lawyer here, but it would seem to me that unless the concern Frank has raised is addressed elsewhere in the bill, it could easily be accommodated here.
I gather from reading the bill, from hearing the rhetoric on it and from hearing the minister this morning that the point on which you put your finger is not an intended part of this legislation.
Tobacco products are legal products in Canada. If they're going to be sold, then somebody has to provide the inputs. Then it's a question of whether it's going to be Canadian inputs or non-Canadian inputs, and there you make a valid point.
I take the minister at his word, but we'll follow up. He said this morning that it wasn't intended to have this impact on growers. We may have to find the words to keep that undertaking by the minister.
Are you finished? We only have 15 minutes, and I want to hear from a couple -
Mr. Menich: I have just a couple of quick comments, if you please.
I guess I was a little more concerned about subclause 18(1), which deals with a broader perspective. I wasn't quite sure whether that applied to speaking of products, and again, that refers back to the definition of what ``product'' is.
When you get to tobacco products, clause 7 makes references there.
I think I covered already that we feel this reflects or targets us where there's an impact, and other sources outside of Canada can supply the consumer. I'm not sure that was the intent you were seeking direction on with this Bill C-71.
The Chairman: Two members wish to intervene, in this order: the member for Haldimand - Norfolk, Bob Speller, and the member for Vancouver South, Harb Dhaliwal.
Mr. Speller: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Menich and Mr. Gilvesy, for coming here today.
I want to say I do share your concerns in terms of the timing of the legislation itself. It seems to be going through at least our process fairly quickly. It is the end of the year, and we find around here those things happen. It doesn't mean necessarily the same amount of work isn't put into it; it just seems to be compacted a lot and put into a shorter period of time.
.1215
But I don't think it's the intent of the government to in any way put something through without you, the growers, knowing specifically how it impacts on you. I can assure you, especially with the minister's statement this morning, I will make sure if it isn't clarified in here, that indeed it does get in here.
I'm wondering if you could give committee members a better understanding of how a bill such as this affects growers. As you know, we're not talking about the small tax increase that the federal and provincial governments did bring in; we're talking specifically about this legislation.
You're from the community. Tobacco is grown in a very small area of this country, and a number of surrounding communities have a great percentage of their incomes dedicated to tobacco. I wonder if you can give this committee a better idea of how legislation such as this affects not only the growers but the communities in the area.
Mr. Menich: I'd be happy to.
I guess the best way I can make people understand the impact is by going back to the 1980s, when we had a downturn and we lost 40% of our growers. It doesn't matter why, but we did, and it created socio-economic impacts to our industry. Out of that they saw a need for the federal and provincial governments and our municipalities to compile an economic impact study on how we deal with labour and how we deal with finances.
A lot of members had a lot of input towards that impact study, so I think it's a good, accurate study of our communities. There is over a $330 million farm-gate value. We employ about17,000 people seasonally; I think it breaks down to about 5,800 full-time equivalents.
Needless to say, the merchants and the whole community are centred on this industry. That's why we feel so strongly about this any time a regulation or legislation goes directly to our community. It's not just a way of business. It's not 90¢ versus 80¢ or some financial figure someone pulls out. It's a way of life. It's a community. A lot of feeling is involved.
That's where the sensitivity comes in, and that's what you have to understand. When you're making regulations on these kinds of issues, take that into account. If you don't recognize the impact on our growers and then the sourcing comes from a different country, you've really missed what you're after.
I don't know if that answers the question.
Mr. Speller: As you said, in your economic impact study, the social impacts are also considerable. For example, it raises the number of suicides in the area.
It does have an impact, and it's important for government to know the impacts of legislation such as this on the communities involved, especially given the fact that in the earlier years governments encouraged tobacco farming and encouraged people to come into the area to farm tobacco.
Finally, I'm wondering, Mr. Menich, if you can give us a better understanding of how the regulation process works. This seems to be talked about in terms of regulation of nicotine. What sort of cycle are you on, as farmers? How would a decision to, let's say, lower the amount of nicotine impact on you and how would that flow through the system?
.1220
Mr. Szabo: Good point.
Mr. Menich: First of all, Deloitte & Touche did an economic impact study, and if you would care to have it I would be more than willing to provide it. I wanted to get that clarified first.
As for the content of a package of cigarettes and the impact that can have on the growers, any time you change the chemistry that isn't part of how we produce a plant, if the regulation doesn't conform to how the natural ability of the plant is produced, it creates where some of our product is not necessary, and some will be. Quite simply, if you take a tobacco plant, at the bottom of the plant there is less nicotine than at the top of the plant. So if you make your changes, what you have done is you have just cut off part of my plant and said I can't use it any more.
That's the direct impact. I don't know if that's what you need to understand how it impacts on us, but that's the real essence of the whole content. Any time you make those changes they have an impact on us. Keep in mind that the consumer may not agree with you, and if he or she doesn't agree, he or she will go somewhere else.
The Chairman: The member for Vancouver South, Mr. Dhaliwal, has the last word.
Mr. Dhaliwal: I'm a bit naive about the farming of tobacco, even though I come from a farming community - a farming community in the sense that my family has been farming for many generations. Is the tobacco-producing industry producing more tobacco than you were over the last five or ten years, or less? Has there been a drop in production?
Mr. Menich: As an industry or as a person?
Mr. Dhaliwal: In overall production.
Mr. Menich: In overall production we are actually fairly stable right now. You have to keep in mind that within our industry we export and we also have a domestic portion in it.
Mr. Dhaliwal: How much of it is domestic and how much of it is for export?
Mr. Menich: That changes somewhat proportionately, depending on how much smuggling goes on. By and large we're about a 60% domestic industry.
Mr. Dhaliwal: So the smuggling didn't really affect you very much. I understand a lot of the cigarettes were manufactured here anyway, warehoused and then brought back. So it wasn't a big problem for your industry, was it?
Mr. Menich: I think what I said was that our exports increased.
Mr. Dhaliwal: But if I heard you correctly, and correct me if I'm wrong, you said the smuggling does affect you because less of your product can be sold on the domestic market. We've had witnesses saying in the smuggling that occurred the cigarettes were manufactured here, so your producer would still be providing the raw material. It was sent down to the States, warehoused, and then brought back. So it didn't really affect your industry, did it?
Mr. Menich: You have to appreciate there's a two-price system. There's about a dollar less for export. It has a pretty heavy impact.
Mr. Dhaliwal: I see.
Generally, there is obviously a determination by the government to reduce the number of smokers out there; reduce smoking overall. If the government is able to achieve that, wouldn't it be in the best interests of your producers also to find other products, in the longer term, instead of continuing to produce tobacco? Is that an option you think is available for your producers?
Mr. Menich: I believe in educating youth so they are aware of lifestyles. I believe once you become an adult you are mature enough to deal with lifestyles. If the consumer makes a choice that they do not want to smoke, I believe that's their prerogative and I can live with that.
Mr. Dhaliwal: But the health concerns as they have been laid out here by the minister.... Your industry is not planning to reduce tobacco production or be part of the solution in terms of reducing overall smoking.
Mr. Menich: To be honest, it's the consumer who makes that decision. The consumer decides on volumes, quite frankly, not the growers; and to be honest with you, not the government. I think you've learned, sorry to say, that the consumer will find another way of doing it or of achieving their products. I think that's the point that gets lost in this. It's the undervaluing of the consumer.
.1225
Mr. Dhaliwal: So you think that in the long term we're not going to be successful in reducing the number of smokers out there with our policies. Is that what you're saying?
Mr. Menich: You have a long way to go. You have to key in on education.
Mr. Dhaliwal: Okay. Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you, Harb Dhaliwal.
Thanks to the witnesses from the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board. We're glad that you could come here on such short notice. We thank you for your evidence.
Let me say to these witnesses, and to others through you, that if there's something that you left unsaid or wanted to say, feel free to make a written submission, preferably by fax, because, as you know, we're going to be concluding our hearings on this late Monday. If you have something else that you want to say - and I say that not only to this witness but to all witnesses - feel free to communicate in writing with the clerk of the committee, who has absolutely nothing to do these days.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chairman: He's a very busy man. I want to acknowledge the roles of the clerk and the research people in helping to facilitate the process that we're now involved in. They've had a busy day and they're going to have a few more busy ones, I believe.
Let me say to the committee before we adjourn that we'll meet here in the same room on Monday from 10 a.m. until about 6 p.m. Because of other things happening in this room Monday evening, we will, for the clause-by-clause, retire to room 112 north, also in this building. The usual delicious sandwiches and other food will be provided for you, but we will be sitting straight through. We will not be taking a break for either lunch or dinner. Please govern yourselves accordingly.
If you have to be away for anything except a brief period of time, will you arrange to have someone sit in for you during your absences?
The meeting stands adjourned until Monday at 10 a.m.