EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, December 10, 1996

.0914

[English]

The Chairman: Good morning, everyone. We're now ready to begin our third and I believe final day of hearings on Bill C-71. On that matter I am in your hands.

We have a slate of witnesses, as you'll see from the agenda circulated.

.0915

[Translation]

I would like to welcome our next witnesses from the Conseil canadien de la distribution alimentaire, Michel Nadeau and Michel Fafard. I would ask you to please make a brief presentation so as to save enough time for questions.

Mr. Michel Nadeau (Vice-President, Public Affairs, Conseil canadien de la distribution alimentaire): Thank you, Mr. Simmons, for allowing us to express our views to you this morning.

The Conseil canadien de la distribution alimentaire is a non-profit organization representing businesses working in the area of food distribution. Our members are businesses of various sizes operating across Canada and providing grocery products to Canadian consumers.

I'm accompanied today by one of our members, Mr. Michel Fafard, from Hudon et Deaudelin Ltée in Montreal. This morning we would like to present the position of the CCDA with respect to Bill C-71 tabled last week.

The CCDA supports the government's educational initiative aimed at discouraging people from smoking. In the past we broadly supported the initiatives taken by the industry to dissuade young people from smoking.

At present we support the ``Identity Card'' process on which Mr. Fafard can give you more details during the question period. We also advocate long-term education to discourage smoking among young people. In that regard, there are certain parts of Bill C-71 which we welcome and where we intend to continue to work in co-operation with the government.

However, the CCDA was somewhat upset by the cavalier way in which the government adopted Bill C-71 at second reading last week. We would ask the government to show a modicum amount of respect for democratic procedures when dealing with this piece of legislation, and to give us the opportunity to analyze the bill and make our representations to members of Parliament, who can examine it in turn. At present, the government is not giving us the time we need to express our views and opinions on an issue where, to some degree, not all information is yet available.

Insofar as possible, the government should provide us with the regulations pertaining to this bill, and not with regulations which, being drafted at a later date, would therefore not be the subject of debate in Parliament or of consideration by those people able to safeguard the well-being of the consumer.

The government is also tabling most of the regulations available for simultaneous parliamentary examination in the same way as the enabling legislation. The fact that the bill will be adopted this week with a large number of references to the regulations leaves us completely in the dark. We would strongly wish, and this is what we want to express to the government, that the latter could table regulations related to this bill and give us time to study them. To date, our members hardly received a copy of the bill.

.0920

We therefore need time to analyze it, interpret it and then make recommendations to the government. This morning we are therefore asking the government to table the regulations pursuant to this bill and give us time to make recommendations in this regard.

The Chairman: Have you finished?

Mr. Nadeau: Yes, I have finished.

The Chairman: I will give the floor to Ms Picard.

Ms Picard (Drummond): Welcome to the committee, gentlemen. I agree with you that the government adopted Bill C-71 at second reading without allowing us, as legislators, to debate it. Nor did the government allow the businesses affected by this bill to analyze it and make recommendations with respect to it.

I agree with you that there is a large vacuum, as you indicated, concerning the regulations. We don't know where we're going. We are told that there will be regulations and thus a large amount of power is left to the Governor in Council, which is a bit worrying. We know that this was done quickly and that the government is hurrying to have the bill adopted before Christmas.

Having said that, have you been able to analyze it at least a little? What would be desirable for the companies you represent? Are there any recommendations that you would like to make at the present time on the basis of your analysis of the bill?

Mr. Nadeau: It should be kept in mind that last year, at more or less the same time, the government published the blueprint. We thoroughly analyzed that document and presented written submissions to the government. Essentially, it dealt with issues of particular interest to our area of business, namely food stores where cigarettes are sold.

Some of the points raised in the blueprint were out of touch with Canadian reality. For example, you almost never see cigarettes being sold from displays placed in the aisles of stores. That is essentially an American practice. Therefore, we don't think there's any problem in that regard. Cigarettes are sold from behind the courtesy counter in stores.

We also made a recommendation concerning the marketing or display of cigarettes in food stores. We hope that the recommendation we made to the government, which was referred to in the blueprint, will be reflected in Bill C-71, even though the clause concerning the displaying and marketing of cigarettes refers us to the regulations and stipulates ``according to regulations''.

We informed the representative of the Department of Health, who consulted us on this issue, that in light of our experience in our stores - and Michel can confirm this - every store owner knows that a customer coming into the store has already decided to purchase cigarettes. The main reason for going to a convenience store is to purchase a packet of cigarettes.

We consider that the fact that there may be behind the courtesy counter or behind the cash ten pictures or just one picture of a packet of Players or du Maurier is of no importance. The individual concerned has already decided to purchase cigarettes. The bottom line is that the only effect is on the cigarette companies themselves who exchange their particular programs and also perhaps in terms of the choice of brand made by the person purchasing a packet of cigarettes. Instead of buying a packet of du Maurier, he may buy a packet of Players. But, in any event, he will buy his packet of cigarettes. He has made up his mind.

.0925

We believe that such a principle could cause enormous upheavals throughout the infrastructure of a store. As you know, in the food sector, we operate with paper-thin profit margins. Our profit level is less than 0.01 cent per dollar.

If the principle stated in the regulations is introduced and implemented, all our retailers will be obliged to make enormous changes to their stores, to remove the labelling on products and hide those products under the counter, something which really is not likely to have any effect at all on the purchasing patterns of consumers. The retailers will have to spend more money to redesign the displays. Therefore, there will be other problems at the cash if the person working there has difficulty in identifying the packet which the customer wants. Such problems are not necessary. As we recommended in our briefs, we would prefer the government to focus on long-term education programs for young people. That is where the work should be done.

Experience shows us that it is desirable to try to protect young people and make them aware at an early age of the dangers of smoking, that is before the critical age of 12 or 13, when there is so much peer pressure that young people often begin to smoke. If we are able to work on a long-term basis to change attitudes and help these young people, who are at this critical age, resist the temptation to smoke, I think we will have achieved our goal. We would thus be going much further than if we tried to convince an adult who has been smoking for years and already knows that it is harmful for his or her health, but still decides to go on smoking. That is his or her choice as an adult. I don't think that the government can serve as a doctor, seeking to protect the consumer and telling him or her that it is not good for their health. I think that Canadians are already sufficiently aware of that. In view of all the warnings on cigarette packets and the information published, the consumer is already fully aware of the dangers of tobacco. In the case of young people, that is a different matter.

I always draw an analogy with the excellent work being done in the area of alcoholic beverages. A few years ago, an organization called Éduc'alcool was set up. It is funded through contributions by distillers. It organizes education campaigns to inform the public about the dangers of abusing alcohol. Similarly, we believe that it is possible to work on a long-term basis to educate young people about tobacco so that they will not start smoking.

[English]

The Chairman: The member for Macleod, Grant Hill.

[Translation]

Mr. Hill (Macleod): You say that you want to see the regulations beforehand. I would also like the same thing, but that is not possible. Those regulations are not here. If a review could be carried out, would you prefer that to be done by the members of the committee?

Mr. Nadeau: Our industry will applaud any efforts by the government, through a task force or a special committee, leading to greater openness and transparence, or at least to the possibility for us of providing the government with specific recommendations. Unfortunately, it's impossible to do that at the present time. We would not want the legislation to be adopted before knowing what the regulations are, since they will have an impact on the Act itself. I don't have to explain that to you, since there is no one more aware of that than you are. The legislative process is so complex. It is more difficult to come back to it at a later date and change certain points which, in our view, might not be logical in terms of the overall agenda being sought, namely to reduce smoking among young people.

[English]

The Chairman: The member for Mississauga South, Paul Szabo.

Mr. Szabo (Mississauga South): Thank you, gentlemen, for your presentation.

Mr. Nadeau, are you familiar with any piece of legislation presented in the House of Commons that has regulations with it before the bill is dealt with at committee?

.0930

[Translation]

Mr. Nadeau: Particularly related to tobacco?

[English]

Are you making specific reference to a piece of regulation on tobacco products?

Mr. Szabo: I'm just suggesting to you that regulations don't appear with the bill when it's first presented.

[Translation]

Mr. Nadeau: Yes, but in the past, on the basis of what was tabled, we had a relatively specific idea of what the context of the regulations would be. Unfortunately, that is not the case at present.

[English]

Mr. Szabo: Which ones? Give me an example.

[Translation]

Mr. Nadeau: In various areas of our industry where we have worked with provincial governments, be it on legislation concerning opening hours or drugstores, we have always had a preliminary draft of the regulations.

[English]

Mr. Szabo: In fact, in the federal government the regulations come after the principles of the bill are dealt with. Then you can have the regulations to fine-tune based on the testimony and based on the changes made at committee and at report stage. The gun legislation is an example. That legislation was dealt with a year and a half ago, but the regulations have just now come out. The implementation of this also has not been specified, and that will come as well. The important thing now is to deal with the elements that are in the bill.

You are familiar, I understand from your testimony, with the blueprint and its details. Could you tell us whether or not you're aware of any substantive differences between the blueprint that was issued a year ago and the proposed Tobacco Act before us today?

[Translation]

Mr. Nadeau: I would like to be able to answer your question, but unfortunately, when I look at this bill, I see that all the clauses refer to the fact that the government can, by regulation, amend particular points. The problem with this bill is that, unfortunately, it is too vague. We cannot comment because we do not have specific details on the regulations which will come into effect.

For example, we are told that the bill can impose prohibitions or govern the way tobacco products are marketed, but that doesn't tell us what they're going to ask for. Will the facing have to be reduced to one tenth, and will cigarettes have to be placed out of sight? Those are the kinds of questions which we would like to have answered. We cannot comment on something which is not clearly stated.

[English]

Mr. Szabo: I think everybody will have the comparative between the tobacco blueprint and the Tobacco Act legislation. You will see, point by point, issue by issue, on advertising, sales promotion, point of sale, sponsorship promotion, access, labelling and product, it shows the principles that the legislation is articulating. The blueprint and the legislation before us today are virtually the same.

The point is that the regulations aren't changing these. These are the principles the bill is drafted upon. The regulations will deal with things like the size of the billboard you can have. This is not a principle; it's a detail. Regulations are ostensibly details.

I want to ask you one other question. You mentioned that stores will possibly have to spend some money to change the layout of their counters or shelving or whatever. If the cost to a store were no more than $50, would you have a problem with the legislation as it impacts your stores?

[Translation]

Mr. Nadeau: Perhaps Michel can answer that.

[English]

Mr. Michel Fafard (Conseil canadien de la distribution alimentaire): I don't know how you could say it would be less than $50.

Mr. Szabo: Just pretend. It's hypothetical. If it were $50, would you have a problem?

Mr. Fafard: It's because...you were talking a few minutes ago about the details of the legislation.

Mr. Szabo: Let's pretend.

Mr. Fafard: But it's more than pretend; it's more than that. It's because they have some revenues involved in the back of it.

Mr. Szabo: Hypothetically, if it were only $50 or less, would you have a problem? Would your stores have a problem?

Mr. Fafard: In the cost of rearranging our stores?

Mr. Szabo: Yes. Say, for instance, that the government subsidized everything else. Would you have a problem if it were less than $50?

.0935

Mr. Fafard: Even subsidize the revenues that are lost with the -

Mr. Szabo: Sure - absolutely everything.

Mr. Fafard: Everything.

Mr. Szabo: All it's going to cost you is $50 or less. No problem?

Mr. Fafard: I don't know more of the details. You're speculating. I don't know.

Mr. Szabo: The point is that if it's only a small amount of money for you, you wouldn't have a problem, but then we have to ask you the question at what point does the health issue become less important than the money you have to spend. You've just admitted that there is a price at which you wouldn't object, but now if I raise the price to you, all of a sudden how much it's going to cost the store is going to be more important to you than the health impacts of tobacco consumption, and that's the contradiction here.

Mr. Fafard: We've always been aware of the health issue. Since 1994, when there was some legislation, we were there to send material to each and every store. We supported it, and we even supported it in the last drive we did with all our stores. Health has always been there. We always thought it was an education thing.

[Translation]

The Chairman: I would like to thank the witnesses. Your participation is very much appreciated; thank you very much.

[English]

I invite now the next witness, from Action on Smoking and Health, Mr. Les Hagen.

Welcome, Mr. Hagen. We're glad to have you. We assume you may have a statement. We also assume it will be a brief statement, because we'd like to ask you some questions.

Mr. Les Hagen (Executive Director, Action on Smoking and Health): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, committee, for having us in from western Canada. My co-presenter, our vice-president, had to go back to Alberta last night, so I'll just be the sole presenter here this morning.

The Chairman: What is your position with this group?

Mr. Hagen: I'm the executive director of Action on Smoking and Health.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Hagen: Action on Smoking and Health is western Canada's leading tobacco control agency. From our headquarters in Edmonton, we've been providing provincial and regional leadership on the tobacco issue for over 15 years.

On behalf of ASH, I would like to commend the government and Parliament for making tobacco reduction a priority by introducing legislation to curb the tobacco epidemic in Canada. We also applaud your efforts to gain control of an industry whose products are responsible for more deaths than all other forms of preventable illness combined.

While Bill C-71 is far from perfect, we would like to offer our support in principle for the bill and for the government's intent to address this issue in a comprehensive and effective manner.

I'd like to state for the record that we believe the bill's predecessor, the Tobacco Products Control Act, was severely and fatally flawed to the point of being virtually ineffective in curbing tobacco promotion in Canada.

Because of the tobacco industry's exploitation of the sponsorship loophole, tobacco brand-name advertising continued to appear in print, broadcast and outdoor media in thousands of venues and millions of publications across Canada. The truth is that we've never experienced an advertising ban in this country or anything close to it.

Parliament has an opportunity to learn from the experience of the Tobacco Products Control Act and to develop a bill that will achieve its stated purpose and that will prevent the tobacco industry from circumventing its provisions.

Bill C-71 establishes crucial regulatory authority that will help prevent tobacco companies from exploiting loopholes. This approach is consistent with the regulation of hundreds of products and substances through the Hazardous Products Act and the Food and Drugs Act.

We know that the industry will find loopholes in the legislation and the regulatory scope of this bill will allow the loopholes to be plugged in an effective and expedient manner that will not require lengthy parliamentary approvals.

Although we would have liked to have seen the full specifics of the regulations beforehand, we do not believe that the drafting of regulations should slow the passage of this important health legislation. We understand that the passage of other bills of this nature, including the Hazardous Products Act, precipitated the development of subsequent regulations.

Over 100,000 young people have taken up smoking since the Supreme Court decision in September 1995. It is very difficult to justify any further delay.

We're disappointed that Bill C-71 does not reflect all of the proposals contained within the tobacco control blueprint, especially the call for a total ban on advertising. However, with some further refinements we believe that the bill will achieve the desired objective of reducing tobacco use.

.0940

From our agency's perspective we feel that the bill has the following advantages. First, the bill provides authority for product regulation and disclosure. This particular product is a prime example of the need for product regulation; it's a product that's been put on the market recently, Skoal flavour packs. These packs are sugar-coated nicotine. That's what the tobacco industry is putting on the market. This is the type of product that needs to be regulated. I'd like to pass this around to committee members.

The bill prohibits the use of false, misleading or deceptive claims on tobacco packaging, although these terms are subject to further definition. The bill provides authority to prohibit most forms of direct advertising and sponsorship advertising, although exemptions need to be better defined.

Mail order sales and interprovincial mail order promotions are prohibited. Self-serve displays are prohibited. There are improved restrictions on youth access, including photo identification and an optional statutory sales ban upon conviction. There is better reporting on tobacco industry information regarding manufacturing, distribution and promotion of products.

One of the limitations of the bill, as we see it, is a return to full product and sponsorship advertising in publications with adult readership. I hope by adult readership we're not referring to such magazines as Reader's Digest and TV Times. Children read newspapers and magazines, and they should be encouraged to do so as part of their learning and growth. It would be a shame to see this type of ad appear in Reader's Digest, or in TV Times or some other publication to which children have access.

The bill sanctions sponsorship promotions, which are specifically targeted at youth. Here's an example of a production in Calgary, Little Orphan Annie, that was held over the Easter break last spring sponsored by du Maurier. Is this the type of production that Parliament wishes to sanction?

The bill, as worded, would allow for brand-name promotions on buildings. Could this include the Skoal Bandits Saloon or the Players Sports Bar? We need a better definition. There are no restrictions on sponsorship promotions that are not youth-oriented or lifestyle-related.

The very definition of lifestyle advertising contradicts this ad. Please observe this ad. I'm going to read the definition for lifestyle advertising in subclause 22(4):

``lifestyle advertising'' means advertising that associates a product with, or evokes a positive or negative emotion about or image of, a way of life or aspect of living such as glamour, recreation, excitement, vitality, risk or daring.

I think that definition contradicts the mock-up ad.

There are no health warnings specified for sponsorship promotions. There's no health warning that appears on this ad. There are no limitations on total sponsorship expenditures or new events, and there are too many limitations on the types of messages allowable on tobacco products, such as a 1-800 quitline.

Various health groups have made recommendations and have drafted motions to address these concerns. We urge you to carefully consider these amendments in the clause-by-clause review this afternoon.

The tobacco industry in Canada has a long track record of exploiting public health to its economic advantage. It is not coincidental that Canada's most heavily advertised brands are also the brands of choice among adolescents. The tobacco companies have long realized that their economic future depends on their ability to recruit new customers. The vast majority of these new customers are children and adolescents.

On behalf of ASH, I urge committee members to seize this opportunity to promote and protect public health in Canada by supporting amendments to Bill C-71 that will help to ensure it achieves its stated objectives.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Are you finished, Les?

Mr. Hagen: Yes, I'm finished.

The Chairman: First of all, Madam Picard.

[Translation]

Ms Picard: Good morning, Mr. Hagen, and welcome to the committee.

If I may, I would just like to say that I find that there are some inconsistencies in your statement.

At the beginning, you said that it was a good bill. Then you said that there was no authority regarding the regulations. It's as if you were arguing: ``Pass anything, regardless of the details, so long as there are regulations''.

.0945

Following that, you maintain that there are no measures to educate young people. Then you go on to talk about promotion, publicity and other issues.

I therefore find this presentation to be inconsistent. You say that there are no regulations, but that that is not serious. You will place your trust in us at the time when regulations are to be adopted. Then you go on to propose certain measures to strengthen prevention.

Could you clarify your position for us?

[English]

Mr. Hagen: I believe there are inconsistencies in the proposals that are before us, and we would like to see full regulations at this point in time, but the reality is that legislation of this nature is typically passed before regulations are introduced. That was certainly the experience with the Hazardous Products Act and other pieces of legislation, and I don't think tobacco should be an exception.

Mrs. Picard: Merci.

The Chairman: Grant Hill.

Mr. Hill: Have you had enough time to look at these documents and form a good impression? Did you need more time to come here and flesh out your recommendations?

Mr. Hagen: I think more time would have been beneficial. I think we need a full public inquiry and royal commission into the affairs of the tobacco industry and their marketing practices.

The reality is that we need something quickly to prevent the tobacco industry from going unregulated in this country, and this is a good stop-gap measure to help prevent some of that from taking place. Once this bill has been passed in the House and regulations have been brought forward, perhaps we can look at more meaningful ways of consulting with the public, as well as calling tobacco industry executives to the stand to have them testify. You can ask some of your questions pertaining to their marketing practices in this country.

Mr. Hill: So you're willing to accept this legislation and hope that it comes across fairly quickly, so that improvements can be made down the road.

Mr. Hagen: As a stop-gap measure, to prevent the tobacco industry from going completely unregulated in this country, and hopefully with the government's sincere intent to introduce meaningful regulations that will reinforce this legislation.

Mr. Hill: You've stated here that Canada really has not had an advertising ban; we haven't had an advertising restriction. Yet one of the documents presented to me as evidence that an advertising ban is useful is a British study that looked at Canada, New Zealand and some of the other countries that had ``advertising bans'', and concludes that there has been a reduction in smoking in those countries that cannot be explained in any other way.

If you tell me that we haven't had an advertising ban, how do you explain the conclusion that British study came to?

Mr. Hagen: I think there are different experiences in various jurisdictions. There have been other factors in Canada - there are other factors in other countries - that influence consumption, including price. I think you have to look at the balance of the strategy or approach to determine its overall impact.

Mr. Hill: One of the things we have been told by the tobacco manufacturers over and over again is that there is no proof an advertising ban is effective. Do you buy that argument?

Mr. Hagen: Absolutely not.

Mr. Hill: Can you give me some specifics so that I could...?

Mr. Hagen: In general terms, if advertising didn't work, there would only be one media organization left in this room. It would be very difficult for any of you to get re-elected.

There were lots of questions put forward yesterday. A child who goes to a tobacco-sponsored event, will he take up smoking? One exposure to one event or one message is not likely to do it. On the other hand, we know that the industry's presence, the identification of their brands on the market, the images associated with those messages - those are the elements that contribute to increased consumption.

The members are going to be seeking re-election very shortly. One sign on somebody's lawn won't encourage someone to vote, but if no one knows your name and the principles you stand for, you're not likely to get re-elected.

.0950

Mr. Hill: Finally, if I might -

The Chairman: You're just about out, but go ahead.

Mr. Hill: The regulations are not available to us now. They will go through consultation and gazetting. Would you have any wish for elected representatives to look at those regulations before they become law? Does that make any difference?

Mr. Hagen: There is an opportunity to do that through the current process.

Mr. Hill: There isn't. After gazetting and consultation with affected parties, they will just go through Governor in Council.

Mr. Hagen: But I understand that's a transparent process. You mentioned that the regulations are gazetted and that people do have an opportunity to make representation.

Mr. Hill: Good enough for your -

Mr. Hagen: Absolutely. If it's good enough for every other food, drug and substance in the country, it's definitely good enough for the leading avoidable cause of death.

The Chairman: And from beautiful Vancouver South, Herb Dhaliwal.

Mr. Dhaliwal (Vancouver South): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be very quick.

There are a couple of amendments you'd like to see to this bill. Maybe you can make us more aware. Let me try to understand which ones you want. First, you have a problem with lifestyle advertising, in the sense that if you want a negative ad, you cannot put it in - according to the legislation. Is that correct?

Mr. Hagen: That's what has been discussed, yes. I think it's up to Health Canada to provide that kind of clarification.

Mr. Dhaliwal: I'm trying to understand the amendment you want.

Mr. Hagen: Sure.

Mr. Dhaliwal: In terms of lifestyle advertising, you want to be able to advertise the negative aspects of smoking. Is that what you're saying will be a problem?

Mr. Hagen: Potentially. Even getting other kinds of information on a package of cigarettes, like a quitline or what have you.

Mr. Dhaliwal: Okay.

The limits on contributions for tobacco sponsorship - let me try to understand this one as well. You're saying that the tobacco companies should not be able to sponsor 100% or 50% of the cost of an event. Would you like a percentage or a ceiling? Are you saying that if they're sponsoring $60 million, that should be the ceiling? Maybe you can clarify exactly what you mean when you say you want a limit on the contribution.

Mr. Hagen: My preference would be for a complete ban on brand-name sponsorship promotions, but not a ban on tobacco industry contributions to the arts and sports community. I think there's a big difference.

Mr. Dhaliwal: But you originally said a limit was what -

Mr. Hagen: That's right, that there should be a limit, either on the overall amount of contributions the industry can make or a percentage of a particular event. As we heard in yesterday's testimony, a number of events are heavily dependent on tobacco industry funding, and that's a dangerous situation.

Mr. Dhaliwal: Did that happen in the last few years? Some groups that were here went from being given about $100,000 to $450,000 in a very short period of time. Is that consistent with what's happening in other -

Mr. Hagen: It's a dangerous situation and in many cases I think it's an engineered situation: that the tobacco companies knew the day was coming when we would get around to closing the sponsorship loophole and the more groups they could fund and develop a co-dependency with, the more difficult it would be for you to address this issue today.

Mr. Dhaliwal: I presume you're saying that if we let this go on, the day we want to have a total ban it will be more difficult for us as legislators to bring that about because they're so dependent.

Mr. Hagen: By all means.

Mr. Dhaliwal: Thank you for those clarifications.

The Chairman: Thank you, Les Hagen, for being with us this morning. Your testimony is appreciated.

We invite to the table Michael Perley from the Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco.

While Mr. Perley is coming to the table, let me mention to the committee that in approximately five minutes we'll hear a thirty-minute bell calling us to a vote in the House. I propose that we briefly recess for that vote. We will be alerted when it is three minutes before the vote, and that will give us time to get to the House. I would encourage members to get back here as soon as possible so that we don't get too far behind in today's schedule. If we do it that way, we may lose ten or fifteen minutes of committee time, but that won't be pivotal at the end of the day.

.0955

Welcome, Michael Perley, from the Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco. Do you have an opening statement?

Mr. Michael Perley (Director, Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco): Yes, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Please be brief, because we have some questions.

Mr. Perley: Mr. Chairman and committee members, thank you very much for this opportunity to address the committee. On behalf of the Ontario Medical Association, the Ontario division of the Canadian Cancer Society, the Ontario Lung Association, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario, and a dozen other members of the Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco, I want to express our appreciation for allowing me to make a few comments this morning on Bill C-71.

We were founded several years ago to support passage of the Ontario Tobacco Control Act, which made tobacco sales to minors illegal in Ontario, banned sales in pharmacies and from vending machines and made some Ontario public places smoke-free.

Our work on the Ontario legislation, which came into law in November 1994, and the current work we are doing to encourage passage of smoke-free bylaws, like those just passed in the cities of Toronto, Vaughan and North York, are only one part of the comprehensive approach to tobacco control that we feel is the only approach that will ultimately guarantee us a smoke-free future generation.

Tobacco products must be controlled where they are sold, where they are used, in terms of their price, how they are made, and where and how they are promoted, marketed and advertised. Bill C-71 takes some major steps to address the latter two areas. My agencies want to commend the government and those opposition members who are supporting Bill C-71 for the stand they are taking on behalf of Canada's young people.

Bill C-71 is also a cornerstone of all tobacco control efforts in Canada, especially when the regulations under it will be gazetted and it will affect all other work on this issue. Let me explain why.

We all know how accurately young people spot adult hypocrisy. During talks I've given across Ontario, I've had many people ask me why we are pushing for smoke-free restaurants, bowling alleys and other recreational establishments, while low prices and widespread advertising of cigarettes are still allowed.

They don't just mean direct advertising. Kids aren't fooled by sponsorship advertising. In one study of several I'm tabling today, when American and Canadian researchers showed du Maurier jazz festival and Players racing posters to Canadian students, 53% mentioned the Players racing poster was about cigarettes and only 4% recognized it as being about Players racing. The rest mentioned a company or a lifestyle as being the other things the ad represented.

Regarding the du Maurier poster, 12% said the du Maurier jazz festival poster was about cigarettes and only 2% recognized it as an advertisement for a jazz festival. Others identified the company or a lifestyle as the ad's subjects.

About the du Maurier jazz festival ad, I'd like to pass out some copies of these kinds of ads because it's difficult to discuss these things in the abstract. These ads you're going to have a look at on these sheets are typical of the type of poster and billboard sponsorship advertising of which I'm speaking.

In this study about the du Maurier jazz festival ad, students said ``Jazz is smooth and mellow and du Maurier wants people to believe that its smokes are smooth and mellow'' or ``People who smoke and like the festival will try du Maurier, since they support the festival''. About the Players racing ad, kids had this to say: ``You don't think about cancer - driving is more exciting'' or ``Race drivers are tough'' or ``Kids idolize car racers and kids will want to be like car racers and smoke''.

.1000

Indeed, whatever you may hear from the industry and its proxies about both direct and sponsorship advertising, there's plenty of evidence of a direct association between advertising and smoking uptake. Listen to the conclusions of just two of the several studies I'm tabling today. One study is on the entire U.S. and the other is on California alone. First is the national U.S. study:

The tobacco advertising campaigns targeting women, which were launched in 1967, were associated with the major increase in smoking uptake that was specific to females younger than the legal age for purchasing cigarettes.

And then from the California study:

Perception of advertising is higher among young smokers; market-share patterns across age and sex groups follow the perceived advertising patterns; and changes in market share resulting from advertising occur mainly in younger smokers. Cigarette advertising encourages youth to smoke and should be banned.

Now, the preference of the agencies I represent would naturally be for a total elimination of sponsorship advertising and direct product advertising. We are concerned that Bill C-71 permits on-site sponsorship advertising. We can foresee proliferation of carefully located cigarette advertising at rock concerts and on other specific sites where young people congregate. Despite ad size restrictions, and as in the U.S., TV contracts will contain clauses requiring certain coverage of signs, whatever their size. If this committee can find a way to prevent both on-site sponsorship ads and their rebroadcast, we believe you should.

In the long term, prolonging the availability of funds from the tobacco industry is not doing the arts community any favour. It may appear so in the short term, but sooner or later this dependency is going to have to end, as it has in other jurisdictions. A mechanism we suggested to the federal government in cooperation with the Toronto Arts and Health Alliance was to create transitional replacement funding and a mechanism for allowing such funding in conjunction with a total ban on sponsorships. We still believe this is the preferable route to follow.

In summary, while we feel improvements to the legislation can be made, Bill C-71 in and of itself is a great step forward. By passing it, Parliament will literally be saving lives. Canadians, including all those I represent, can and should support you in this monumental task.

Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Are there any questions? Ms Picard.

Ms Picard: You congratulated the government on Bill C-71. Mr. Perley, I would like to inform you that the Official Opposition advocates the establishment of effective measures to discourage smoking, particularly among young people.

You say that you are in favour of giving assistance to young Canadians. Do you think that Bill C-71 contains measures to educate young people and particularly measures to support the provinces and enable them to help schools to educate and sensitize our children so that they will never start smoking. I haven't seen anything of that kind in this bill.

I also find it difficult to believe that a young person attending a match or international event such as the Montreal International Tennis Tournament would be encouraged to smoke because of advertisements for du Maurier. I am far more in favour of educational rather than coercive measures. I would like to hear your views on that.

[English]

Mr. Perley: I'm sorry, could you repeat that last section?

[Translation]

Ms Picard: I am far more in favour of educational than coercive measures.

[English]

Mr. Perley: Well, Madam, I think the problem with education is that it probably was useful in the early days, starting 30 or 40 years ago, when we first discovered the gross hazards that tobacco represented. There was a great deal of education that went on for a long time publicly and in schools. I think it had an effect. But now education has probably run its course.

I've spent a long time in the environmental movement. For many years we did a lot of educating about issues like acid rain and ozone depletion and so on. That phase is useful. It brings the issues to people's attention. It alerts them in the case of tobacco or environmental pollutants to the hazards of a product. But then past a certain point it runs its course. In the case of an addictive substance like tobacco, people may know about the hazards through education, but either through addiction or the kinds of marketing activities that encourage young people who don't take the addiction phenomenon or the health hazard seriously because of their age - I think we all know this - education simply bounces off after a certain point. I think young people in many senses are immune to that.

.1005

Let me give you an example of what we've had to do in Ontario. In the Tobacco Control Act we looked at the issue of smoking on school property. Everyone was in agreement that it was not a good idea to allow kids to smoke on school property. It sent the wrong message. If they're in a classroom being told smoking is bad but they can step outside for a cigarette, this is adult hypocrisy that they all zero right in on. So we said there should be no smoking on school grounds.

That was brought in largely without incident, and I think it has accomplished several things: it has made it more difficult for kids to smoke at school; it has made it clear that there are a lot of kids who smoke, because they congregate off school property; and it has brought the issue into the community. The community has to deal with it now.

So I think that was a very useful measure. You could call it coercive, but I think it was simply setting a rule that matches the education message. If we're telling kids that smoking's bad for you, that it causes cancer, it's addictive and it's ruining our health care system - we spend $1.1 billion every year on our health care system in Ontario - but at the same time we're allowing cigarette ads all over the place.... There are billboards all over downtown Toronto for Vantage, and there are du Maurier sponsorship ads everywhere. When you drive into Toronto, Harbourfront is a mass of du Maurier advertising from the Gardiner Expressway. If we allow all of this and at the same time tell our kids that this is a terrible substance, it doesn't make any sense.

And there's no way the tobacco industry is going to voluntarily vacate the advertising space they now occupy. There's no way they're going to back off from selling their products any way they choose. They have to get kids to smoke, because if you don't start before you're 19 or 20, you're likely not to start at all. They have to get kids young. They're going to do everything they possibly can to encourage that.

And sponsorships are part of the continuum. Let me try to briefly explain - I know you're under time constraints - how sponsorships sell cigarettes. The marketing of a product like tobacco is a continuum. On one end you have the small logo on a theatre program - du Maurier or whoever. On the other end you have the massive Players Ltd. racing ads, the du Maurier jazz festival, the big advertising that shows up on television.

There needs to be a total continuum so that there's a saturation effect, and everywhere people go, everywhere young people congregate, everywhere anyone who might conceivably use the product or be tempted to start using it, everywhere they are, there is the name of a tobacco brand. Sometimes it can be quite small and sometimes quite large, but the net effect, just like Coca-Cola, Nike and Reebok, is to try to saturate the marketplace.

That saturation was stopped by the Tobacco Products Control Act to some extent, but the manufacturers moved in and occupied a lot of the vacated direct advertising space with sponsorships. Our argument is that since you have this continuum, as long as you allow a piece of the continuum to keep functioning, as long as you have a lot of music and jazz festivals and cultural advertising, which is basically tobacco advertising, but then you eliminate the direct advertising - that doesn't do the job. As I mentioned from the studies, and I can table others that show a direct link between advertising and consumption, as long as a part of that continuum continues to exist, we're going to have a problem.

As well, the small recipients of tobacco money from sponsorships provide an excellent defence for the industry. I'm sure you've heard from small cultural groups coming in or sending you briefs. They don't get much money and would like to keep this advertising. It's hard to resist them, and I think they provide an excellent public face for the industry, which is unfortunate.

The Chairman: Grant Hill.

Mr. Hill: Thank you.

One of the things we've heard over and over again is that small convenience stores will be greatly harmed when the displays are taken apart. You and your organization were instrumental in getting cigarettes out of pharmacies in Ontario. I know you heard the same arguments from the pharmaceutical representatives - that their businesses would go down the tubes, that this would be a tremendous harm to them. Can you give the committee an overview of what has happened to pharmacies since cigarettes were not allowed to be sold there?

.1010

Mr. Perley: In a nutshell, nothing. No study or information has been released by any of the pharmaceutical companies or groups of pharmacists to show that there's been a net negative effect on the industry. There has been no outcry. There have been no studies or announcements at all. There have been no repercussions that we've been able to detect. I would have heard from some of the pharmacists who were working with us if there had been such information, but I haven't seen any of it.

Mr. Hill: So when all the pharmacies were on a level playing field, their businesses were not negatively impacted at all.

Mr. Perley: Exactly.

I would make a quick reference to the matter of smoke-free restaurants. This has been a contentious issue in the United States and Canada. There are about 150 communities across the U.S. that have gone entirely or largely smoke-free in restaurants and/or bars. In every situation where there has been measurement of sales tax data before and after smoke-free policies were brought in, there's been no evidence of negative economic impact.

The same arguments you're hearing from the retailers we heard from, the pharmacists we heard from, the printing and packaging companies - in our legislation we were asking strictly for the authority to bring in plain packaging at the provincial level. It was alleged that just that authority would lead to hundreds of jobs lost in eastern Ontario. Nothing of the kind happened, and there is no evidence of a negative impact from smoke-free restaurants. There was none from smoke-free pharmacies, and I believe it will turn out to be roughly the same here.

Mr. Hill: Do you believe the arguments are exactly the same arguments we have heard in this committee?

Mr. Perley: They are identical. They are in the form of allegations of coming economic catastrophe. There is never any reputable evidence presented in terms of objective independent studies to show that in some other jurisdiction where the measure has been brought in, there has been a negative impact. There's no reliable current data or studies. It's just allegation after allegation that they will go out of business: I'm a restaurateur, I'm a pharmacist, I'm a packaging plant worker and I'm going to be out of a job or lose my livelihood because of restrictions on tobacco. It's always the same.

Mr. Hill: Thank you.

The Chairman: Bonnie Hickey.

Mrs. Hickey (St. John's East): Michael, you said Bill C-71 will help control the sale, use, price and promotion of tobacco. Do you want to see regulations put on what types of businesses they should be in, such as they should be taken out of grocery stores and left in convenience stores?

Mr. Perley: One of the first steps that I understood the legislation was taking was to eliminate the visible presence, marketing and display of cigarettes in retail outlets. I think that's an excellent way to proceed at this point. To the extent that can be made comprehensive, I think it will be very helpful.

Mrs. Hickey: Another question has to do with education. You said that education has run its course. Do you not promote further education?

Mr. Perley: There's always room for education, particularly in the early grades. I wouldn't say that education should stop. My point is that against the specific problem we have today, I don't think education should be opposed to or contrasted with coercive measures. I don't believe these are coercive measures. When you have an epidemic, you deal with it by whatever means you need to control the epidemic, and that's what many medical authorities say we have among the younger population in particular. So continue education in the schools, but don't look at that as a substitute for this kind of measure. This is critical.

Mrs. Hickey: I wouldn't want to think that we could live without education.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Mississauga South, Paul Szabo.

Mr. Szabo: Michael, I had an opportunity to talk with a couple of people about this issue over the last few days. Somebody crystallized it for me a little bit. If they could sit in this position they would want to turn the tables and say how dare you come before this committee and wrap yourself in the flag and children and all those warm fuzzy things and just say that we have to do this and forget about those poor business people and some of the impacts on the arts. What's wrong with you, Michael, don't you care about those people? So somebody would want to be here and ask those questions. Since they can't be here but I am, maybe I'll give you a crack. What do you think?

.1015

Mr. Perley: I think that's an excellent question.

First of all, I don't think there's any wrapping in any cloaks going on. We have excellent medical and economic evidence to show that first of all - I don't need to repeat the numbers here about the number of Canadians who died, but it's 14,500 Ontarians - we have measured increases in the amount of smoking going on among young people since the tax roll-backs in 1994. It is certain that some of those young people who started, perhaps encouraged by the low prices and further encouraged by the elimination of advertising, will die.

One question our medical people often ask is how many businesses or hours of employment is a death from lung cancer worth? We have to come at it from the point of view that since we're in the health business, our business is about making sure that if there is an entirely preventable hazard out there in society with no benefits to its users - there may be benefits to its manufacturers obviously - there is sound medical evidence that it should be eliminated.

I think Parliament, with my understanding of the bill, is not going to do all this overnight. There's going to be a transition period of some kind. I imagine more of that will be fleshed out in regulation. Any smoke-free by-laws we bring in have an implementation period. The provincial legislation we brought in had an implementation period. There's time allowed for people to make adjustments. In the case of arts and cultural funding I've always found it a bit strange that the people who allege, and just simply oppose the elimination of sponsorships, don't, as one counsellor said, get with the program and start negotiating with say some pharmaceutical companies or some others who have an interest in smoking cessation to replace some of that sponsorship money.

In other words, all of this boils down to that you either resist change, and change in this case is about eliminating the number one preventable cause of death.... You just resist and resist because circumstances are too difficult, or you figure out how you can roll with the change and work with it to your advantage. If you're a restaurant owner you go smoke-free sooner rather than later. If you're a pharmacy chain you get rid of cigarettes sooner rather than later, and use it as a selling point, as Big V Pharmacies did in Ontario.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Michael, for taking the time to come this morning on behalf of the Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco. We appreciated having your participation.

Mr. Perley: Mr. Chairman, I've tabled the studies I referenced during the presentation at the beginning.

The Chairman: They're attached to the exhibits. Thank you very much.

We welcome now, from the Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada, two witnesses.

Mr. Szabo: Is it about a half hour?

The Chairman: Yes. As I indicated earlier to the committee, the bell for the vote is ringing. We have made an arrangement to be alerted about three or four minutes before the clock runs out so that we can be down to the chamber in time for the vote.

I invite the witnesses to join us at the table: Dr. Jim Walker, the treasurer for Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada; and Cynthia Callard, the executive director. As they will have heard, they may be interrupted mid-sentence, as it were.

We invite you, Dr. Walker and Cynthia, to make your presentation briefly, we hope, so we can give you a few questions as well. Welcome.

Dr. Jim Walker (Treasurer, Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada): Thank you. I'm Dr. Jim Walker. I am an Ottawa area dermatologist and one of the founding members and past chairman of Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada.

Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada represents the physicians of this country who are most serious about dealing effectively with the epidemic of tobacco-related diseases. We would therefore like to step back and take a broader look at tobacco, the sort of look you would want to take at another product if you were trying to bring cocaine into this country and just to see what tobacco really is.

Tobacco is addictive. It's the number one preventable cause of disease in this country. It's responsible for 40,000 deaths in Canada annually and one third of all cancer deaths. It's a product that has no innate value other than to maintain the addiction it creates. It's the only legal consumer product we are aware of that is is both addictive and lethal when used as the manufacturer intends it to be used. The majority of its users are addicted before they reach the age of majority. And remember that nicotine, which is the addictive product in tobacco, is a prescription substance in the doses that are present within one cigarette, and it is illegal to advertise or promote prescription drugs to the public in this country.

.1020

When we look back at cocaine or other street drugs, they pale in comparison to the devastating health effects created by tobacco in this country. We need legislation that protects the children of this country, not legislation that protects the tobacco industry at the expense of these children.

The record of the Chrétien Liberal government on tobacco control is disgraceful. First, despite their viable alternatives, tobacco taxes were lowered, increasing youth access. Secondly, very limited energy was spent to defend the Tobacco Products Control Act, and now, a year after your blueprint, the proposed legislation is too weak to provide any significant degree of protection to Canadian children.

There is currently considerable unrest in Canada. There are, for instance, aboriginal people, the Quebec separatists, labour strife, health-care funding; but each of these groups have their advocates to work and support them and work towards an effective fair settlement. We would ask who is the advocate to protect the children of this country against the tobacco industry? Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada feels that this current legislation and the actions of the Liberal government to date certainly have shown that they are not acting as advocates for our children.

As physicians, we are disillusioned by the so-called democratic process, if this is the best we can do. Physicians are constantly bombarded with demands to provide better health care, what with the decreasing resources. Yet we see that even former Liberal health ministers are working for the tobacco industry to force cabinet compromises that blatantly support the industry, denying health to Canadians.

This government has an opportunity and a responsibility to significantly improve the health of Canadians for generations to come. In its current form, Bill C-71 abdicates this responsibility and cheats our children of a healthier future. We strongly urge that the bill be amended in accordance with the recommendations in our written submitted brief. In particular, the sponsorship of tobacco, through the medium of sport and the arts, must be eliminated totally.

A year ago the former Minister of Health, with the support of her cabinet, indicated that a complete ban on advertising was required and that the necessary evidence to support this ban in court was now available. Health researchers and legal authorities in the health community know this to be true. Yet the current Minister of Health has backed away from a total ban in favour of a very modest partial ban.

If we step back again and look at the current situation of the Krever report, it is clear that governments have a responsibility to protect when the knowledge and methods are there to protect. We request that this government accept this responsibility and make further steps to protect Canadians, in particular the children of this country, against the devastating effects of tobacco and to bring in a complete ban on advertising and sponsorship.

Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: The Member for Drummond, Ms Pauline Picard.

Ms Picard: From what I understand, you would like tobacco to vanish from the face of the earth. You would be in favour of a radical measure. You would be in favour of legislation completely banning the use of tobacco products, as is the case with heroine or cocaine.

.1025

For the moment, I don't think that this type of measure is realistic. In the meantime, we have to adopt legislation which will be more effective in helping us to reduce smoking among young people, and particularly in not encouraging them to smoke.

You were critical on a number of points, particularly as regards sponsorship of sports and cultural events. I would like to know what you propose. Have you considered any possible solutions?

[English]

Dr. Walker: To deal with the first issue raised as to whether or not at this time we're looking to totally ban tobacco from the planet, to use your term, the answer is no. We have seven million addicted Canadians who are using this product, and we don't feel that is a realistic approach.

Our long-term goal is to eliminate the tobacco-related diseases in Canada. To achieve that goal we feel we have to protect the current generation of children, who will be the future customers of the tobacco industry. We feel the current legislation falls far short of its potential to protect those children, in particular with regard to advertising and sponsorship. That is our major concern in this bill.

In terms of other sources of funding, as Mr. Perley has mentioned, there are all kinds of corporate funding other than the tobacco industry that could be used to support these other events. Again, I think you have to step back and say we're missing the forest for the trees if we are to promote this sort of thing, because you're dealing with the number one cause of preventable disease in the country.

This is a health bill. It's not meant to be a corporate bill. It's a health bill. We're dealing with the number one health issue in this country. I think surely we can be more creative. I'm sure the high-tech industry, the other aspects of the entertainment industry, the soft drink industry - there must be many other sources of funding.

Remember, tobacco sponsorship is tobacco sponsorship. It is not sponsorship of sport and the arts because these people are good corporate citizens. They're sponsoring these events so they can sell tobacco and in many cases sell tobacco to children.

I have great trouble when I review this bill in believing all of these limitations where it says it's not to be marketed to children. If you ask the tobacco industry, none of their ads has ever been marketed to children. But they clearly are.

Ms Cynthia Callard (Executive Director, Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada): I'd just like to add something. I think everyone accepts the need for an incremental approach, to take one step at a time and move forward in improving. The question is whether this bill, with all of the loopholes it has in it, is a step forward or whether in fact it's a step back.

Certainly it's a step back before the Tobacco Products Control Act of 1988, which got rid of all direct advertising. This permits direct advertising well beyond the minimal scope that was necessary. If it were just direct mail or something, I think we could say yes, this provides charter assurance. But we're going to have ads in newspapers. We're going to have full-time broadcasts, two or three hours a week of broadcasting of corporate logos. We're going to have the possibility of storefront signs, which disappeared after 1988, returning to the main streets where children go to school.

The Chairman: Grant Hill.

Mr. Hill: Have you had enough time to review the legislation?

Dr. Walker: I think we've had enough time. It would be nice to have a little more. We think legislation of such importance need not be rushed through. We would rather have good legislation than rushed legislation.

Mr. Hill: Do you think this legislation will advance some of the goals you wish to see advanced when it comes to anti-smoking measures?

Dr. Walker: Yes. It makes some progress. But I'm quite concerned the political response to this will be that we've passed your tobacco bill, we've done enough. It may be ten or fifteen or twenty years before anything else is done at the federal level.

We were here nine or ten years ago trying to defend another tobacco bill. In the net of that, we've got nowhere. Being here now, we're all going to be retired and gone by the time we make significant progress on this issue.

.1030

To me, as a health care professional, the damaging effects of tobacco and some of the possible solutions are so clear-cut. As I say, we are really disillusioned with the democratic process if this is the way it has to go with such a clear-cut issue. If you're trying to prevent disease in this country, you have a golden opportunity and you're letting it slip by. As I see it, this bill has been very strongly watered down compared to the blueprint due to pressure from the tobacco industry. That is not in the best interests of health in this country.

Mr. Hill: We expect a judicial challenge from the tobacco companies on literally any measures that are brought forward. You feel, then, that by making this much tighter, in the interim there would be an improvement that would be worth while.

Dr. Walker: I think you have to define tobacco for what it is. There has been no successful judicial challenge on other things that cause harm in this country. As I said, you can't even advertise prescription drugs to the public. There is the Hazardous Products Act, which protects against things like shattering plexiglas and pop bottles and the space between the slats on cribs. These cause very few deaths per year - admittedly sadness, but very few deaths. The medical evidence supporting the damaging effects of tobacco is just astounding, and the void between that medical evidence and what politicians are willing to do is huge.

Mr. Hill: If you were in this chair, would you vote for or against this legislation, as I will be doing in a fairly short time?

Dr. Walker: I would find very great difficulty voting for it the way it is if that means we're not going to get any better tobacco legislation for some time.

The Chairman: Dr. Walker, I'm a little concerned about your references to undemocratic actions, and I thought they should be put in context. You said we were here ten years ago and got nowhere. In fairness, for the record you ought to say why you got nowhere. You got nowhere not because the government failed to act. The government of the day was actually a Conservative government. The government brought in legislation that was subsequently shot down by the Supreme Court. Now, I don't find that at all undemocratic. I think that's part of our process. But in fairness, for the record, I think you should point out why it was that, having been here ten years ago, you got nowhere. You got nowhere because the Supreme Court shot down the legislation as being unconstitutional.

Dr. Walker: If at that time we had classified tobacco as a hazardous product, as the other things I just outlined to Mr. Hill, then I'm sure it would have been a much different situation. But because it was just a restriction on advertising and a very limited restriction on promotion without classifying tobacco for what it is, it became a weak case.

The Chairman: You're saying it was undemocratic because you didn't get your way.

Dr. Walker: It's not to protect me. What I'm saying is that the democratic process did not very well serve the people of this country. The democratic process as it's occurred since this bill was introduced, in my mind, does not appear to be heading in the right direction because of the dilution of the health protection benefits of this bill under influence from the tobacco industry, as I see it.

The Chairman: Again, you and I differ. Your definition of undemocratic is that you don't agree with it. A lot of things you don't agree with may still be democratic.

Dr. Walker: Could I respond to that, please? I would like to ask, then, who is going to put in the supporting vote for all those people who can't speak up for themselves?

The Chairman: Dr. Walker, what I object to, sir, is your sitting there and castigating the way the bill was introduced, that nothing is right about it. Well, we happen to think we're doing the best job we can, and that's why you're here this morning. We'd like to hear your views, but if they're going to be straight opinions, we'd like to have them substantiated in some way rather than just spewed by us. Tell us what you think about the bill.

Dr. Walker: What we think about the bill is in our written brief.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Joe Volpe from Eglinton - Lawrence.

Mr. Volpe (Eglinton - Lawrence): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I find that you have already taken some of my discussions forward.

.1035

Dr. Walker, please be assured, at least from my part, that you're doing an estimable job. People like you who speak up on behalf of those who cannot be heard deserve respect, just like members around this table who are elected to speak for everybody else.

I found it a little surprising that in response to the question from the member from Macleod, Dr. Hill, about what you would do on this legislation, you said you would vote against it. Unless I misheard your answer, you said you would vote against this legislation as it is. I find that really surprising.

Dr. Walker: What I said was that if I felt this legislation was going to prevent the introduction of any further effective legislation for many years to come, I would find it difficult to vote for.

Mr. Volpe: All of the members around this table are engaged in an exercise to produce a piece of legislation that will address the issue at hand. I have a lot of regard for members from the opposition parties, as I do for those from my own party. They're trying to do the very best they can, and the legislation will be the very best - i.e., the most effective - at dealing with this issue.

Those are the only conditions I would place on this legislation. So if I'm going to vote for it, it will be because after having debated it here and in the House, we find it acceptable. I think that's a realistic goal, and I'm using language you used earlier. If the ideal goal is to cause the elimination of the practice of smoking and to eliminate tobacco from the face of the earth, okay, that's the ideal I would hope for. I don't smoke and never have. I also accept that it's not realistic. I'm trying to do a realistic thing.

On the matter of realistic, I think it would be very helpful if we answered a question that Madame Picard indicated earlier on. Let's be very specific. The Supreme Court eliminated the legislation that was in effect in the nation. That is number one, and we have to deal with that. This legislation is designed to address the issue with that reality facing it.

Second, while it may be your personal impression that the record of this government is less than laudable, you might recall that $100 million is spent by this government on a tobacco reduction demand strategy. Some of that money went to health groups like your own, some of it went to departments of education for educational purposes, and the rest went into research and addiction organizations to address the matter at its root cause. I think a government that takes those kinds of responsibilities in a realistic context is not to be ridiculed. I don't ask for applause and compliments; I just ask for a realistic approach to the issue at hand.

Now, let's take the realistic approach. Will you go for this bill or will you not?

Dr. Walker: If I had to take this bill or nothing else and there was no room for compromise, yes, it's better than the current legislation that doesn't exist. I accept that. What I'm saying, though, is that this bill can be greatly strengthened. Our fear is that it will be passed and then the regulations can be weakened. There's a lot of room for compromise in this bill.

Mr. Volpe: Maybe there is, but there are a lot of witnesses who appeared before you, and I suspect who will appear after you, whose main concern is that this thing is too tough and likely to get tougher in the regulations. If we're going to be speculative, we ought to keep in mind what the other side is saying.

Quite frankly, there are members around this table who would prefer to make it even tougher than it appears to be today, but it may not withstand the test of a Supreme Court decision.

The task of this committee is to present to Parliament something that will meet that delicate balance: to be tough, effective and withstand a challenge. That's all this committee wants to do.

Dr. Walker: Sir, I suggest to you that if you were to properly couch tobacco in the terms of what it is and what it does to this country in terms of health, and therefore put your restrictions on it as we proposed, I cannot see how the Supreme Court of Canada could not defend it.

.1040

Mr. Volpe: We're going to differ. I think you used the key words. Let's both be realistic. There are seven million people who are willing clients of this, for me, dreadful habit.

Dr. Walker: Sir, they are not willing clients: 90% of smokers are trying to stop and wish they could but can't.

Mr. Volpe: Very good. Thank you very much for reminding me and putting me in my place on that. But right now the legislation allows that particular type of commerce to take place.

What we want to do, I think both of us...all of us around this table are interested in eliminating that relationship, down to zero. So I think we should work in a cooperative effort, on a cooperative basis, rather than on one that immediately puts people on this side of the equation on the defensive for making an effort.

Dr. Walker: We feel there's an opportunity for much more effective legislation than now exists.

The Chairman: Herb Dhaliwal.

Mr. Dhaliwal: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I want to address some of the issues you've put forward, Dr. Walker, to improve the bill. Part of our job is to look at ideas that can improve the bill. At the end of the day, if we don't reduce smoking we haven't done our job and the bill hasn't done our job. That's what you want and that's what we want. At the end of the day we want to reduce smokers.

I want to ask about a couple of things that have come up before. One is reviewing the proposed act within three years so people like yourself can come back and say what improvements we can make if we haven't done a very good job. I wonder if you would support a review of the proposed act in a three-year period when it comes back to the committee forum.

Dr. Walker: I think that is quite reasonable.

Mr. Dhaliwal: The other thing is a yearly audit to evaluate the success in reducing smokers. Would you think it would be a good idea to have a yearly audit on whether in fact we're making progress in reducing the number of smokers?

Dr. Walker: Yes, I think that's an excellent idea.

Mr. Dhaliwal: Also, would you support clear objectives or clear targets for us to reach for? If we say our program is working, we should always evaluate. If there are seven million smokers today, perhaps we should have a goal to reduce them 1% every year over the next ten years. Would you say we should have some sort of target or clear objectives that could measure the results?

Dr. Walker: The one-word answer to that question is yes. On the other hand, you need a mechanism to achieve it. What are you going to do if you're not achieving it?

Mr. Dhaliwal: That's why you have a review in three years to say that if in three years you're not meeting targets, perhaps we need to strengthen it, perhaps we need to go further: perhaps we need to have a total ban. That will give us some idea as a future committee to take further action. Would you support that?

Dr. Walker: Yes, I would.

Your phrase ``total ban'': do you refer to a total ban on tobacco or to a total ban on advertising and promotion?

Mr. Dhaliwal: On advertising. You have to evaluate and ask whether we need to go a step further.

If some of those changes were made, would you support the bill?

Dr. Walker: Yes, as long as they are honoured.

The Chairman: I would like to thank the witnesses, Dr. Jim Walker and Cynthia Calland.

The committee stands recessed for the vote.

.1043

.1103

The Chairman: Order, please.

We now welcome, from Montréal International, Francis Fox, president; and from Just for Laughs, Gilbert Rozon, president. We also welcome in particular our former colleagues from the House of Commons and cabinet, Charles Lapointe and, again, Francis Fox.

Good to have you all. I assume you have an opening statement.

Mr. Francis Fox (President, Montréal International): Yes, indeed.

The Chairman: We hope it will be fairly brief, because we'd like to ask you some questions, if we may.

Mr. Fox: With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would limit myself to about two and a half minutes, as would Mr. Lapointe. I understand we have approximately five minutes for opening statements.

First of all, we'd like to thank the committee for hearing us today. We're not here at the request of any group. No one has asked us to appear here except the committee itself. We're delighted to respond to the invitation given to us.

[Translation]

Mr. Chairman, first I would like to explain the capacity in which we are appearing before the committee. I myself am the President of Montreal International, Charles Lapointe is the President of the Office du tourisme du Grand Montréal (Greater Montreal Tourist Bureau), and Gilbert Rozon is the CEO of the festival Just for Laughs. Mr. Rozon is very familiar with the world of festivals.

[English]

We're really here because we have some very serious concerns. We're not here to debate the merits of the bill. We think it is the job of parliamentarians to decide which way they want to go on it, but we'd like to make sure all of the implications of the bill are indeed understood. We feel there may be a number of side effects to the bill that are not desired by Parliament or by the government, and we hope we will be able to share those concerns with you today.

.1105

As you may know, Mr. Chairman, the whole area of festivals is really at the heart of Montreal, in the summer season in particular.

[Translation]

Montreal has become a city of festivals. In fact, one of the aims of Montréal International is to present Montreal as a city of festivals over the coming summer. Festivals are a source of cultural productions and of pride for us all, but they are also a source of revenue with an economic impact on jobs in the metropolis throughout the summer.

[English]

Over the years the festivals in Montreal.... That's basically the group I'm speaking for on behalf of Montréal International. One of the main roles of Montréal International is to attract events of international significance to Montreal and to try to keep them there once they get there. Obviously we're very concerned if as a side effect a bill could have negative effects on the continued existence or survival of these festivals.

Over the past few years these festivals have received less and less government money. These festivals have really understood the fact that we live in an era when deficit reduction is a priority, and they have lived with them. As a matter of fact, the message given to all these organizations by government over the past few years has been that you have to find some alternate sources of financing. The festivals have indeed found alternate sources of financing. They've gone out and been in touch with most of the national companies in our country. They've been able to come up with sponsorships at the level that was important to them.

One of the side effects of the bill is to eliminate the number of these sponsorships. We feel in the circumstances the government should be considering a number of transitional measures. We would suggest that through the bill these festivals may be up for the fight of their lives. We're six months away from the next series of festivals. It's impossible for anybody to turn around in a six-month period and find alternate financing. We would suggest the government consider a transitional period in which the government would help these festivals over the next two years to find the appropriate level of financing until they can in turn once again find appropriate levels of financing from other sponsors in the Canadian corporate community, if the bill goes through.

Now I will turn it over to Charles Lapointe.

[Translation]

Mr. Charles Lapointe (Chief Executive Officer, Office des congrès et du tourisme du Grand Montréal, Montréal International): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would also like to thank you for inviting us to appear this morning and thus giving us the opportunity to fully support the views Francis Fox just expressed.

I would like to point out that the bill before you is the cause of considerable concern and upheaval affecting the economic strategies we have developed in Montreal, particularly in my area. As I am the CEO of the Office des congrès et du tourisme du Grand Montréal, my responsibility is to promote the city to outside markets, in Canada, the United States, Europe and Asia.

The very heart of our strategy to promote tourism is based on major events taking place in Montreal during the summer months. These include major festivals, the Canadian Formula 1 Grand Prix, and the tennis Internationals.

As of April 1, we are beginning a 6.2 million dollar campaign in the United States, entitled Montreal, A City of Festivals. Obviously, the slightest snag in staging scheduled events would endanger the whole tourism strategy.

The reason I mention this is because I believe that the bill, with which we agree in principle, may have some unintended and unforeseen effects. I believe that, as parliamentarians, you should be informed of all the details affecting the public when you adopt a piece of legislation. Therefore, I think it is important, six months from the staging of these events, that you provide alternative means of funding for these festivals.

One such possibility might perhaps be to have a transition fund which could be financed from the additional taxes imposed two weeks ago on cartons of cigarettes.

.1110

This is in fact what is done in Australia. As regards the Formula 1 Canadian Grand Prix, for example, you should have the power to grant exemptions to the law. As parliamentarians, after analyzing all the Canadian events affected by limiting the sponsorship of tobacco companies, you should be able to take decisions yourselves to allow such exemptions. I don't think there is anything new or shocking in that. the Canadian Grand Prix, for example, injects 50 million dollars into the economy of Montreal, and during that five-day period the hotels in our city have the highest occupancy rate and can charge the highest rates. Other options will certainly have to be found to preserve that.

Therefore, it is absolutely essential to protect this money which is being invested into the economy of Montreal, as well as the money provided by other events, such as the Jazz Festival, Just for Laughs, the Francofolies, the World Film Festival, etc.

I think that you have to consider ways of helping us to get through a two or three-year period so that we can find alternative sources of funding, because we will not be able to find them in the next six months, should the bill be adopted in its current form.

[English]

The Chairman: Are you ready for questions?

Mr. Fox: Yes.

[Translation]

The Chairman: I will give the floor to Ms Picard, the Member for Drummond.

Ms Picard: Gentlemen, I would like to thank you for coming to meet with the committee as we consider this bill.

I would like to assure you of the support by the Official Opposition for the festivals and major events taking place in Montreal which are sponsored by tobacco companies, and I would like to inform you that we will take into consideration the measures you proposed. Thank you for presenting them to us.

I would like to ask you if you have any studies or figures which might enlighten the committee about the economic spin-offs from activities taking place in Greater Montreal during the year, and as regards direct or indirect job creation.

Mr. Lapointe: The studies we have conducted are updated every year. We work in co-operation with the Université du Québec in Montreal to analyze the economic spinoffs of major events. The most precise and reliable study we have is the one we did on the Canadian Grand Prix. We can state beyond the shadow of a doubt, and I could send you the documentation on the subject, that the event in question itself injects 50 million dollars into the economy of Montreal. The exact figure is even 53 million dollars.

As regards the four major festivals, the Jazz Festival, Just for Laughs, the Francofolies and the World Film Festival, the total amount injected in the economy of Montreal is $137 million.

I do not have with me all of the details regarding the number of jobs created. I don't know ifMr. Rozon has information on that subject, but the amount of $137 million is also documented and we could send you the appropriate supporting information.

Ms Picard: Can you tell us if the tobacco companies have approached you to express their concerns regarding sponsorship? Are you worried about the measures proposed in this bill?

Mr. Lapointe: I would like to thank you for that question and say that I have never in my life met with representatives of tobacco companies. I do not know them. I don't know who they are. I have never received representations from tobacco companies. It is as a citizen of Montreal and someone responsible for promoting tourism in the Montreal area that I am worried.

Since tourism brings $1.3 billion to the economy of Montreal and it is one of the economic growth sectors, I think it would be dangerous to dramatically disrupt this area. It also has to be appreciated that the economy of Montreal is not very strong.

.1115

I would ask Mr. Rozon to add any comments he might have.

Mr. Gilbert Rozon (President, Just for Laughs, Montréal International): If I may, I would just like to add something. As we all know, Montreal is a city facing significant economic difficulties. In this climate, we have managed to build events which are among the 20 biggest in the world. We built them not only in an economic context where we have to stop comparing ourselves with Toronto or other major cities around the world, but also at a time where, because of the government deficit, we had to deal with cuts in funding unmatched anywhere around the world. If you want to compare us with other locations, you should look at countries such as France which subsidizes major events to the tune of about 50%. In our case, we are talking about 4%.

We have therefore been faced with enormous financial difficulties over the past four years. We have been asked to try and obtain funding from the private sector, which we have done. But if this bill is adopted, my question today is what exactly is being done for culture? We hope that by the time we die we will be a little less stupid than when we were born, and culture is the key factor in our evolution as human beings, in our souls and in the way our personalities are defined.

Major events taking place in Montreal and other parts of Canada are essential to the definition of our personality as Canadians. Funding is being cut six months before an event is to be held. To answer your question specifically, I can assure you that in six months deficits of $1.5 or $2 million will be announced for each of these events because the organizers will not have been able to find the money needed. We would not have come to appear before you this morning if we had already found solutions.

Tobacco companies will continue to make money, the health of Canadians will improve, and the government will collect more taxes, but in six months we will be announcing large deficits to you. All we are asking for is to ensure that there is some balance in the decision to be taken; we are asking you to consider our position or simply tell us that you want to eliminate this sector of the economy comprising major events and, in so doing, eliminate the influence that Canada has outside its borders.

However, we are not just job creators. I myself have 800 million viewers looking at these events every year. In six months we will have to disappear or report a deficit of 1.5 or $2 million. That is the clear reality.

I've not come here to complain, but rather to explain to you the problem and see what we can do together to resolve it.

Ms Picard: Thank you very much.

[English]

The Chairman: Grant Hill, member for Macleod.

[Translation]

Mr. Hill: Thank you. As regards the Canadian Grand Prix, there are three countries which are against tobacco sponsorship: Germany, France and Great Britain. What is the difference with Canada?

Mr. Lapointe: I think there is a major difference in the case of Canada because we are in North America. In the case of the French, German and British Grand Prix, the automobile companies in those countries make major investments. I am thinking here of Renault or other companies or automobile manufacturers. In our case, if the Grand Prix were to leave Montreal, it would relocate in another North American city, such as New York, Boston, Chicago or somewhere else in the United States. In fact, the United States would very much like to have this Grand Prix in their country. I remember that a comparison with France, England and Germany was made when we discussed a similar piece of legislation adopted in Australia where, because of the lack of investments by one or more Australian automobile companies, the Australian Parliament and government made an exception in the case of the Australian Grand Prix.

Mr. Hill: I telephoned Indy Car this morning and asked them if such a piece of legislation would mean they would cease such activities in Canada. I received a different answer. Is the situation different as regards Formula 1?

Mr. Lapointe: I'm sorry, but I'm not a specialist in automobile races. I cannot give a specific answer to your question.

Mr. Hill: Thank you.

.1120

[English]

The Chairman: We have three other members who wish to intervene. We can get them all in if they do so briefly in each case, in this order: Paul Szabo, Joe Volpe and Andy Scott.

Mr. Szabo: Thank you, gentlemen, for coming forth.

We did hear about this before yesterday. Your assumption is that if the legislation passes, the sponsorship is gone. It's just black and white. Yet nobody was able to tell us definitively that the sponsors have said they're not going to fund.

The interesting thing I'd like to ask you about is the economics. This is $60 million of injection into the economy and it's $5 million from the tobacco companies and I'm sure other funding, but generally speaking it's a very handsome and substantial return. I'll take my cheque book out right now if you're prepared to give me those kinds of returns. Why wouldn't anybody else do it?

The problem I have to deal with is your assumption that the tobacco companies don't believe their advertising is affecting the health of potential users of cigarettes. You're assuming that if they can't advertise to the same extent, somehow they're going to abandon that audience they've been going after. It doesn't equate. There's a contradiction here. They're all going to still be under the same level playing field, it's just that they'll all have to play on another level. It may be restricted, but they still want that audience.

If you've got such a good product and such a good venue for those customers they've been going after for either switchers or new smokers, why would they abandon? What else is there? Are you trying to tell me that those hotels are just going to sit vacant and that all the food and souvenir concessions are all of a sudden going to disappear because your festival isn't there? It's not so. The world is not going to stop when you do these things.

We need some help to understand why you think the light switch goes off and the sponsorships are all gone because they obviously don't believe the money they're putting in has any impact on their products, they're just doing it out of the very goodness of their hearts. Maybe you could help us out.

Mr. Fox: Thank you for the question. Actually, we really wanted to come here in a very non-aggressive intervention to share with you some of our concerns over some of the potential side effects. Obviously I don't speak for the tobacco industry and I can't answer your question and say they're going to be in or out. I do know the bill does indeed restrict the level of sponsorships in terms of advertising.

We also know that in the past people like Mr. Rozon have searched far and wide for sponsors. He will add a few words after. We're not saying these are the only sponsors in the world. We're saying perhaps we're playing Russian roulette with all the festivals in Montreal. I know it's Christmas, but they'll be starting up in June. It's six months away. And if indeed it does have the effect that we fear it will, there's no way these people can turn around in a six-month period of time and find new sponsors. That's why we're pleading with you to put some flexibility in the bill and to say that if something does indeed go wrong and for whatever reasons they have the tobacco companies decide to pull out, we're not left in the lurch.

Basically, these people have done their jobs in a tight economy. As Mr. Rozon pointed out, only 4% of his revenues come from government grants. They've been cut significantly over a period of time and they're probably going to be cut more. The government has asked these people to go out and find alternate financing. They've done so, and through a government bill, which you people have to vote and decide upon, it's not our job but we're telling you that bill may have some side effects you're not looking for and may kill the festivals.

At the moment, I can't tell you that it will or will not and you can't tell me that it will or will not. We will know over that period of six months. But if it does have that effect, there should be some kind of flexibility built in to allow these people to have an alternate source of funding during a short period of time. The only alternate immediate source of funding would be government funding. We're not saying it should be government funding forever, but rather during a reasonable period of time to allow them to find additional private sector financing.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dhaliwal): Mr. Rozon.

.1125

[Translation]

Mr. Rozon: If I may, I would just like to add one point. If cigarettes are in fact so harmful to the health of Canadians, they really should be prohibited completely. I'm not here to defend cigarettes, not at all.

I see our symbols, all our major stars in American films, smoking cigarettes and drinking scotch, and I think this is one of the major influences inducing people to smoke.

Why do these companies come to Montreal? They come because we provide them with a certain visibility which enables them to establish their brand. That doesn't sell their cigarettes; it establishes the brand. People will be able to chose between several brands of cigarettes.

In order to provide this visibility, there are various important vehicles for advertising, as you very well know. This legislation makes it impossible to link cigarette brands with vehicles for advertising.

In specific terms, to answer your question, if someone gives us a million dollars, such as Craven A today, and all these vehicles for advertising are removed, they will drop out completely or give us $100 000 or $150 000. We'll be in the hole.

Furthermore, they are the main sponsor. Therefore, all the others will reduce their involvement, because these are standards. I have a seven-person team working throughout the year to find sponsors. Believe me, it's not easy to get money from the private sector. There is a lot of competition.

We are in competition with television channels and everyone who simply sells advertising space. It's not easy. If it were easy, I can promise you that I would not be here today. As a member of the public, I wouldn't even come to disturb you.

[English]

Mr. Szabo: Let's speculate that the government gives you full replacement funding committed to in the transition. If that is a given, would you support the objects of the bill? Do you feel the bill is doing something that will be useful in terms of achieving the health objectives?

[Translation]

Mr. Rozon: I will give you a somewhat involved or diplomatic answer. I will support the government if the policy is good for Canadians. You've certainly been able to analyze it better than I have. Personally, I am a liberal in my thinking and I do not feel comfortable when individual liberties are being attacked. But that is your decision and I will support it in full.

I just want to save my event and culture. That is my priority in life. My priority is certainly not smoking, if I may put it that way.

[English]

The Chairman: We're well out of time now. We have two other interveners. I ask them to do so only if they're burning issues, because we're going to get behind here.

Mr. Volpe.

Mr. Volpe: We're down in flames again. In the interests of time, let's carry on.

The Chairman: Are you passing?

Mr. Volpe: No, I don't want to pass. If we're carrying on, that's fine.

The Chairman: We're carrying on, sir. It's a question of whether we're carrying on until 3 a.m. or midnight.

[Translation]

Mr. Volpe: Mr. Lapointe, I was impressed by your presentation. I thought that you had come here to negotiate an agreement. I do not think that the members on this committee have the authority to negotiate agreements.

If you have a direct impact of 137 million dollars on the economy of Montreal - I think that is the figure I heard - what is the total contribution of tobacco companies?

Mr. Rozon: I cannot give you the figures off the top of my head. For my particular event, I can give you the figures. Just for Laughs has a total budget of 15 million dollars, $450,000 of which is contributed by the government and a little more than one million by the cigarette company.

Mr. Volpe: Therefore, that means about 10 million dollars in all.

Mr. Lapointe: If you exclude the Grand Prix and the tennis Internationals, it comes to about 10 million dollars.

Mr. Volpe: Therefore, we are talking about 10 million dollars having a direct impact on the event, and 137 million dollars being injected into the economy of Montreal.

Mr. Lapointe, I am sure that you are aware that in the United States President Clinton recently tabled a bill which will have the same impact as Bill C-71.

Mr. Lapointe: No, I wasn't aware of that.

Mr. Volpe: It is more or less the same thing. Automobile race courses will no longer have the same choice which you give to Montreal and other cities in the United States. If there were races in Montreal, Toronto, or Vancouver, the cities concerned would be dealt with like any city in the United States.

.1130

Mr. Lapointe: I am not familiar with the US legislative system.

Mr. Fox: I'd like to make one brief comment on that. We are not here to defend anyone. We do not represent tobacco companies, but Montreal. We want to ensure that we can avoid an adverse impact on the economy of Montreal if you decide that tobacco companies are no longer allowed to provide sponsorship. We are telling you that if we lose that money, there will be a problem in Montreal. Give us some time to find alternative sources of funding.

The US economy is far richer than ours; there are probably far more alternatives than here. As we said, your job is to make decisions in the interests of the Canadian public. I cannot imagine that in so doing, you would want to kill off part of the economy of Montreal. I know that is not the case.

Therefore, if you want to make decisions in the public interest, do not make a decision which also affects a significant part of Montreal when it is very easy to find a different solution consistent with the objectives you wish to attain.

Mr. Volpe: You still express yourself eloquently. It is not a question of killing off certain areas so as to save others. You can be sure that no member of this committee intends to kill off anyone.

Mr. Fox: I am sure of that.

[English]

The Chairman: And he's not running for mayor of Montreal.

[Translation]

I would like to thank our friends and former colleagues, Charles Lapointe and Francis Fox, and also Gilbert Rozon.

We will now hear from the representatives of the Chambre de commerce du Grand Montréal. I would like to welcome Luc Lacharité et André Godbout. You may have a short statement you wish to make. I hope you will be brief so as to leave time for questions.

Mr. Luc Lacharité (Executive Vice-President, Chambre de commerce du Grand Montréal): I don't have to explain at length why I'm accompanied by my colleague, the First Vice-President of the Board of our organization, Mr. André Godbout. I don't have a smoker's voice, but I would like to apologize for my voice today. It would be difficult for me to debate issues, but I will try to provide any information you may require. Mr. André Godbout will quickly present our position.

Mr. André Godbout (First Vice-President, Chambre de commerce du Grand Montréal): Thank you, Mr. Lacharité. I know that I am here to speak for you, and I'll be pleased to express your thoughts as faithfully as possible.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, we wish to thank you for inviting us to appear, even with 24 hours' notice. The great advantage there is that it helps us limit ourselves to five minutes.

The harmful effects of smoking are universally known and are hardly questioned. That is why, as the father of four adolescents of 18 years of age and younger, three and a half of whom are smokers, I never thought that one day I would have to publicly defend or call into question a bill seeking to limit smoking among young people.

.1135

First, I must say that the Chambre de commerce du Grand Montréal is not calling into question the objectives of the proposed legislation. However, we believe that the bill has shortcomings and we would like to point out some of these, specifically in three areas.

First, we think that the procedure used in adopting this bill could be questioned. We have doubts about the relevance of certain measures, about their strictness, and third, we are concerned about the economic impact of some of these measures.

I will explain our position briefly. As members of the public, we believe that it is rushing things incredibly to table a bill without regulations which could be studied. The government hopes to get through three readings in less than three weeks. We wonder what is the reason for this sudden urgency when this issue has been the subject of discussion for months and months. We wonder whether all the discussion and consequences of the measures proposed are really being carefully assessed.

We also wonder whether the people affected by these measures, particularly the measures regarding sponsors, have been involved and had the opportunity to express their views on the impact that this specific measure may have on them.

We also wonder about the very work being done by this committee which, if I understand correctly, has been increased by 100%; that is, they have doubled the period of hearings from one day to two. You have to wonder about this.

All this suggests that things are being rushed through and that the consequences of these measures are not all being put on the table.

The second point relates to the advisability of the measures concerning sponsorship. We are not aware of any studies linking smoking to sponsorship. I heard one of the previous witnesses say that there could be an effect on the choice of brands, but I don't think there have been any studies in that regard. If drastic measures are to be taken with respect to what is quite a fundamental right, namely the right to express oneself, such a decision must be adequately documented. We wonder where such studies are.

Obviously, the main point that the Chambre de commerce wishes to raise, and we heard this from the witnesses before us, focuses on the economic impact of that measure. Our conclusion is that this is not an attempt to regulate sponsorship but rather to punish it. In fact, the result will be that cigarette or tobacco companies will not be interested in maintaining the same level of participation as in the past. As a result, certain events may be abandoned and others significantly reduced.

In any event, these events have significant economic spinoffs. Figures were cited earlier. The figure of $25 million in sponsorships was given for the Montreal area, and this is multiplied in terms of economic spinoffs. Furthermore, this measure is being adopted at a time when the climate is anything but rosy for Montreal.

We would also consider the impact on tourism, but I am sure that other witnesses have already spoken to you about this. It is important to look at the magic solution which we hear quite regularly, namely that sponsors will be replaced by others. That is to ignore how business actually works.

Corporate budgets for sponsorships are very limited and tightly managed. It is not because tobacco companies decide to cut their sponsorship budget that telephone or aluminium companies will suddenly decide to increase theirs.

.1140

Telephone and aluminium companies also have spending ratios and frameworks with which they must comply. Therefore, it is illusory to believe that because one group withdraws, another will automatically replace it, particularly to the tune of $25 million and particularly not in Montreal.

Therefore, we are really convinced that this measure will lead to a withdrawal or a reduction of a funding for several activities, at a time when this creates particular difficulties.

If, however, such a measure were to be adopted - and I heard Mr. Fox mention this earlier - I would be inconceivable for it to be implemented overnight. Such an approach would be almost tantamount to anarchy. You are asking people to try to replace large amounts of money in just three months. That cannot be done.

If certain corporations were to decide to increase their sponsorship budget because they saw commercial possibilities, in so doing, that would not be done overnight. Companies do not double their sponsorship budgets overnight. On the contrary, particularly at the present time, they are restricting them.

All this suggests to us that at least a transition period is needed. Asking the government to temporarily replace the money lost seems at first sight to be an attractive idea. Businesses would inform the authorities on the money they would lose, and someone would send them a cheque to offset the amount in question.

However, people forget that purchasing sponsorship for an event is often a venture capital undertaking. During the early years of the Montreal Grand prix or the International Jazz Festival, sponsors not only invested, but also took risks.

I find it very difficult to see how the government will be able to come up with funds on a temporary basis and say:``Alright, we will fund this new project pending the availability of other sources of funding''. It would seem to me to be somewhat illusory, in the present context, to create a bureaucracy for that purpose.

Simply put, it means that if there were a transition period, you would operate with a pool of money which, in the very short term, would replace the money which would disappear, and the money there, the venture capital, would not be available.

That concludes my comments. We would be delighted to answer any questions you may have.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Before recognizing Pauline Picard, I want to make a point in response to somethingMr. Godbout mentioned. There's no rush on this; there's urgency. There's a big difference.

You indicated that this was the second day of hearings. In fact, it's the third day of hearings. You would have been here on the second day, but we couldn't reach you on Friday. We had hearings on Friday, we had hearings yesterday, and we're having hearings today. The reason we're not having hearings tomorrow is that we've exhausted the list of individuals and organizations that wish to appear before us.

So are we doing it fairly expeditiously? Yes. Are we rushing the judgment on it? No. We believe as a committee that it is an urgent matter.

I just wanted to rebut the spin that the tobacco companies particularly are putting on the issue - that people can't be heard and so on. Let the record show that as of 1 p.m. today, everybody who has contacted this committee to be heard, other than a couple who declined for circumstantial reasons, will have been heard.

.1145

Theoretically we can have ten more days of hearings, but nobody is coming, because they've all been slotted in for Friday, yesterday, and today. But surely that isn't the issue. I just wanted to put it on the record that we're taking the time necessary to hear witnesses, and that's why you're here.

Pauline Picard.

[Translation]

Ms Picard: I would just like to make a few comments. Unfortunately, I cannot agree with you. The reason why the Chambre de commerce de Montréal is here this morning is because the Official Opposition pressured the Minister, Mr. Martin, to invite them.

Until yesterday, we intended to sit and hear witnesses until 6 p.m. and then move on to clause-by-clause consideration. Miraculously, changes were made. I do not agree with you at all.

I agree with the representatives of the Chambre de commerce de Montréal who said that such a rapid way of proceeding is unacceptable. The Official Opposition suspects that it knows why there is such urgency and the prohibition of sponsorship is quite unacceptable. That is all I wanted to say,Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: Grant Hill.

Mr. Hill: Gentlemen, have you heard directly from a tobacco company that they will discontinue sponsorship of any of the events in Montreal?

Mr. Godbout: No. We are not here to defend their point of view. We're just concerned about the impact on the economics of the city.

Mr. Hill: Your presumption, though, is that they will discontinue sponsorship of some major events in your city.

Mr. Godbout: Either discontinue them completely or reduce their scope substantially.

Mr. Hill: Do you recall the same debate going on during the time of the Tobacco Products Control Act? Were you around at that time? Were you able to make witness then?

Mr. Godbout: I'm told by Mr. Lacharité here that the Greater Montreal Chamber of Commerce did submit a brief concerning freedom of speech on this specific position at the time of the former discussion.

Mr. Lacharité: Are you referring to the debate about three years ago?

Mr. Hill: That's the one, correct. I've gone back to that debate and found many of the exact same arguments being made today as were made then. I ask people who were there to reflect upon what has happened to their cities, to their organizations, to their sporting events, to the arts and cultural community, in the interim. I find the arguments posed then are being posed today, and they have not borne fruit, if you will. As an individual now, I don't believe it's good enough just to speculate. I believe it must have some validity. So I ask you to look back at those arguments and explain to me why those very same arguments made then did not come to pass and why this speculation you present to us today should have the same weight.

Mr. Godbout: I was not personally a party to that debate, but the scope of the discussion at the time, if I recall, had at least as much to do with advertising as with sponsorship. If the sponsorships have survived, as you say, if they have not been affected or doomsday did not happen with them, I would speculate - and again, it's speculation - the advertising restrictions have had the impact of possibly giving some momentum to sponsorship.

Mr. Hill: My point exactly. Thank you.

The Chairman: Andy Scott, please.

Mr. Scott (Fredericton - York - Sunbury): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to touch on two different parts of this debate. The first part is the health debate.

.1150

Can I assume that if you were convinced, as some are, that this advertising does in fact encourage kids to smoke, you would take the position it's a bad thing? Can I assume this? If you thought this was causing kids to take up smoking, would you not be interested in this? Can I assume that?

Mr. Godbout: I guess you would have studies to demonstrate that.

Mr. Scott: Assuming you agreed with us on that point, if we could establish that, I'm trying to find out whether this is a health issue or something other than that. So that's the question. If it were established clearly that this had the effect of causing children to smoke, I'm assuming you would not be interested in participating in promoting that activity. I'm letting you off the hook to some extent.

Mr. Godbout: It's a hypothetical question.

Mr. Scott: Yes, it is.

Mr. Godbout: I can only speculate on how the chamber would react to that.

Mr. Scott: I'll recognize that you didn't say this, but I'll presume that. If that's the case, first of all, I have 308 studies that were tabled here yesterday by the Canadian Council on Smoking and Health. So studies exist. We can argue about how good they are or whether they're any good. You did say there weren't any, and there are plenty.

Mr. Godbout: Linking sponsorships with smoking?

Mr. Scott: There are a whole bunch of boxes right over in the corner. They're all entitled ``advertising and smoking'', all those kinds of things.

Mr. Godbout: Advertising is not the same thing.

Mr. Scott: That's an important consideration here. We're not prohibiting sponsorship. We're talking about advertising. We're talking about the visibility that's associated with that sponsorship. That's advertising. Sponsorship is giving them the money. Visibility is advertising. They want people to know they gave them the money. That's an important consideration.

Nevertheless, the point I'd like to make is that if we're saying that smoking is bad, as a country, as health professionals, as a government, we're saying smoking is bad. Does it not occur to you that it may be inconsistent with that message for good people and good events to give the impression that it isn't bad?

The ads I saw yesterday gave the impression that smoking wasn't as bad as I thought. Ads featuring sophisticated people looking from penthouses over beautiful skylines and thinking about going to the symphony are sponsored by du Maurier. That is inconsistent with the idea in my mind that smoking is bad. That's what we're trying to deal with. Is our message being cluttered by the very subtle impression being created that it's not as bad as we're letting people believe? That's what we're struggling with.

This is not about hurting Montreal economically. This is not about closing Theatre New Brunswick in Fredericton, of which I used to be the co-chair for fundraising, or shutting down the Harvest Jazz and Blues Festival that I sold tickets to last fall. I'm committed to these things too. This is about health. That's why I was trying to ask if we agreed on the health issue, whether the rest of it would be rather academic. I accept the fact that perhaps we don't agree on the health issue.

Mr. Godbout: If you are really convinced about that, then you should have the courage to go straight to the issue and just ban cigarette smoking. Let's be consistent.

Mr. Scott: If seven million people are addicted to -

Mr. Godbout: I heard the story.

Mr. Scott: To answer your question, if that's the case, then if we prohibited smoking, we might have the same effect as we did with raising taxes to put them out of the reach of people. We both know what happened. I know it happened in my neighbourhood. People were buying them out of the backs of trucks. Consequently, it isn't simply a question of saying if it's so bad we would prohibit it, because I'm not sure we could prohibit something that has seven million people addicted. So we agree on that point.

Mr. Godbout: But you also raise the question of taxes, and again this apparently has demonstrated that it has an effect on young people smoking.

Mr. Scott: I don't know about all parts of the country, but in our case all it did was invite people to sell cigarettes out of the backs of their trucks. That's what happened.

Mr. Godbout: I agree, but there should be some enforcement then. Let's have some courage here. If you raise taxes and you can't keep them up because of smuggling, it's because we have not had the courage as a nation to step in and stop it. I'm sure we have the means to stop it.

Mr. Scott: I have two questions. One, if we gave a year of transition, what guarantee would we have that you would spend the year trying to find alternative funding and not spend the year trying to convince us to change our minds?

.1155

Seriously, we've had a year. This debate's been going on quite a while. I know how hard it is to fund-raise. I did that before I got this job. But the fact of the matter is, in the back of my mind I'm thinking that if we say we're going to put this off for a year, what's going to happen? You're going to make a business decision. Where's your energy going to be spent? More likely to convince us to change our mind than to convince someone else to sponsor your events.

The second question is where are the tobacco companies going to spend the money they're not going to spend on your event when this is passed?

Mr. Godbout: They may want to declare a dividend. I don't know what they want to use their money for.

I'm sure you're leading to something here.

Mr. Scott: I think there's still going to be an opportunity for them to promote activities. I know at least one of the events in my constituency won't be affected by any of the restrictions because all the advertising is inside, in licensed premises, so there are no kids. My sense is they will probably continue to be funded.

How many of those types of activities will be funded? How much will the same money be spent someplace else? That's my question.

Mr. Godbout: So is there a specific proposal to ease the transition there? We haven't seen that in the bill. We haven't seen that in regulation anywhere.

Mr. Scott: I think the bill is that. The bill does outline the opportunity that remains available for sponsorship and restricted advertising, restricted visibility. Is that not what the bill does? The bill allows the opportunity for the tobacco companies to continue to support activities, but in a different way, with less visibility.

Mr. Godbout: The consequence of that, and I think this is the gist of our argument, is that with less visibility there is less money. There is an economic impact. We're saying let's try to temper it, let's try to ease it onto those who will have to cope with that.

The Chairman: Paul Szabo.

Mr. Szabo: In terms of the last exchange, if there's less visibility and therefore less money, that would presuppose that everybody else could still have the same level.

The point that's being missed here, Mr. Godbout, is that every tobacco company is going to be on the same playing field. They still are going to advertise, but as was stated in the blueprint, which came out a year ago, December of 1995, there will be restrictions designed to limit the lifestyle appeal while leaving some incentives for sponsorship. That's what the government's intent was a year ago. This wasn't put on the table such that you had no time to respond. That's a year old.

What does the bill say? The bill says all brand-identifiable...will be limited to the 10% at the bottom of the ad, but brand name and brand-identifiable promotion of the event will be permitted in adult publications, in direct mailings and on site - in other words, exactly what the blueprint said is in the Tobacco Act.

I don't understand how you can come here and say, with a straight face, this is all of a sudden so rushed, and you don't understand. You're really talking about the sponsorship and the issue that everybody's still on the same playing field. They're still going to want to advertise to somebody somehow. This is still going to give them a venue. Your assumption is that if we pass this bill, it's all gone, and we're going to have to pay for it.

Well, I'm sorry. I disagree with you. They're going to spend their money somewhere. They're still in competition with the other tobacco companies.

Ask yourselves, sirs, ask yourselves: why isn't the tobacco industry and why aren't those tobacco companies here in front of this committee? Why have they failed to represent their interests? Why have they pitted us against each other on their behalf? Why are you here?

There are all these other groups saying ``Isn't this awful?'' The tobacco companies are too smart to be here. They said ``Let's have a fight. You guys go ahead, and if we don't show up, start without us.''

It can't work that way. They're not here. Think about it. Why aren't they here?

[Translation]

Mr. Lacharité: First, we clearly pointed out that we were not here to represent the tobacco industry. We are here to inform you of the very adverse impact such measures will have on the economy of Montreal.

.1200

We would like to obtain answers to our questions. How will these measures apply to an event such as the Montreal Grand Prix, for example, or the Montreal International Jazz Festival, as well as all the other major events which are an integral part of our economy and have a significant positive impact on the economy of Montreal during the summer? That is our concern.

[English]

The Chairman: I understand, Mr. Lacharité, you don't see yourself as a representative of a tobacco company. I take that at face value. The problem is, you may unwittingly be cast in that very role by the obvious strategies of the tobacco companies to absent themselves here, I'm sure not through lack of interest but apparently through some other strategy.

We're left to assume - and correct us if we're wrong - that the scenario Paul Szabo spelled out may well be the correct one, that the tobacco companies have determined that the best way to have their message put at the table is through the people who may be adversely affected by sponsorships.

[Translation]

Mr. Lacharité: Mr. Chairman, I have one other question. People have spoken to us about the hundreds of studies directly linking sponsorship and smoking among young people. Are such studies going to be made public? Are you going to answer me that they are public because they have been tabled before the committee? Has the time been taken to analyze them? We are told that they have just been tabled or that they were tabled beforehand, and that there are boxes and boxes of them. I think that such studies should be debated. We have to be shown how thorough and scientific such studies are before a direct link can be established between sponsorship and smoking.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Lacharité, our role here as a committee insofar as this legislation is concerned is very specific and very narrow. The House, after second reading, gives this committee Bill C-71 to scrutinize it, clause by clause. It's not our prerogative or mandate to debate the principle of the bill. That's been done in the House.

Preceding that exercise in the House, I understand there was a 14-month period during which the government received briefs and representations from 3,000 individuals and organizations, probably including your own.

The process we're involved in here is quite important but quite narrow. It's to scrutinize the detail of the bill. To assist us in that scrutiny, which we'll begin doing at about 1 p.m. today, we've undertaken to hear as many witnesses as possible.

For the next statement I need the attention particularly of my good friend, the vice-chair of the committee, the deputy from Drummond, Madame Picard, because what I have to say may well differ from something she said a few minutes ago.

The committee initially met on Thursday, once the bill came to us from the House. It arrived a little sooner than we had expected it, frankly. We were alerted Thursday that the bill would be coming to us. We had a quick meeting of the committee to decide how we would handle the bill in committee, and when.

At that time, on Thursday, we elected to have two days of hearings on Friday and Monday. Over the weekend I was in fairly regular touch with the clerk, who was receiving representation from various people who would like to appear. By late Saturday I had ascertained that we had more requests than we could accommodate on Monday.

So I came here yesterday and on my initiative - not on the initiative of or under pressure from anybody else, but on my initiative - at the beginning of yesterday's session, committee members will recall, I suggested we might do well to have an additional day of hearings so as to hear all the witnesses who had indicated their wish to appear. As I indicated to Mr. Godbout a few moments ago, it was in that context that we've had the extra day for witnesses.

I can't speak for the committee, but I feel certain we'd be prepared to have another day of hearings if there were other persons or individuals or organizations who wished to be heard. As it happens, that is not the case. Once we've heard two more witnesses, we will have heard all those who have indicated their desire to appear before the committee.

Any final comment, gentlemen, before we cut you off?

.1205

Mr. Godbout: I think it's a very serious thing when we start to have edicts of this nature concerning sponsorships in a free-speech country. Before going ahead with such measures, I think a cause-and-effect relationship between sponsorships and smoking amongst youth should be ascertained very clearly. I have not been privy to the studies that were just referred to. If they do exist, fine, but to our knowledge, they don't.

[Translation]

The Chairman: I would like to thank the witnesses from the Chambre de Commerce du Grand Montréal. Thank you very much.

[English]

I'd now like to invite to the table Dr. Allan Best, representing the National Cancer Institute of Canada.

First, however, since our previous witnesses are still in the room, let me say to them one other thing.

Mr. Lacharité, I neglected to respond to the last question you put about the availability of the information. It's my understanding - and maybe this is a good time to do it, Andy - that Andy Scott has a motion he attempted to put as you came to the table, and I cut him off. Maybe it's a good time to do this, because it might well address the very point you raised.

Andy, just proceed with your motion, if you would.

Mr. Scott: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Yesterday the Canadian Council on Smoking and Health tabled extensive documentary evidence about the impact of tobacco marketing on smoking behaviour. I have copies of some of these.

I would like to take the opportunity to simply move that the documents presented by the council yesterday be retained for the ongoing study of the standing committee on substance abuse and that it be included as evidence in these hearings.

The Chairman: May I suggest, before I receive the motion, that the last phrase creates a lot of problem and many tens of thousands of dollars of expenditure. It is one thing to attach them as an exhibit, but to receive them as evidence means we have to print them with the report.

Mr. Scott: To attach them as an exhibit would be satisfactory. I heard Grant shudder from here.

The Chairman: All right. The motion is that we receive the evidence presented by the Canadian Council on Smoking and Health as exhibit B. That would mean we'd retain it as a committee. Insofar as the point raised by Mr. Lacharité is concerned, the information would be publicly available.

If you want any or all of that - and I use the term ``all'' advisedly, because there's an expense involved, and you're a taxpayer too - we'd be glad to try to facilitate the request for such reports as you may need, Mr. Lacharité.

Again, we welcome Dr. Best from the National Cancer Institute of Canada. Do you have an opening statement, sir?

Dr. Allan Best (National Cancer Institute of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd originally prepared a written submission for you. You should have copies. I don't need to read it. I think I'll walk you through it quickly and leave as much time as we can for discussion.

My basic purpose is simply to answer the question of what proof there is that tobacco marketing affects kids. I'm largely presenting a study that was contracted to the National Cancer Institute of Canada earlier this year by Health Canada. NCIC has continued to update that research review since our final report was tabled with Health Canada on March 31, so I believe we do indeed have all the most recent research that's available on the impact tobacco marketing does have on kids.

What the report in front of you suggests, in the two pages that are in the report itself and in a more detailed overview from our original report, as attached.... The more detailed review includes both a figure and some detailed tables of the research we may want to refer to. The final document you have in front of you is a brief resumé describing my qualifications. I'd be glad to answer any more questions you may have in that regard. Both our full final report and the research studies that were reviewed for the report were included in the CCSH documents tabled yesterday.

.1210

Briefly, NCIC did a thorough review of all the most recent evidence. We built on recent reviews that have been done in the U.S., in particular the 1994 Surgeon General's report, the Institute of Health report, and the Federal Drug Administration report. We also commissioned a group of some 25 international experts to collaborate with us so that the results we reached as a result of our review would have some degree of consensus among the leading experts in the field.

The first thing I want to talk about is what kind of research makes sense. The difficulty we have is that we can't do experiments on kids. We can't show one half of the kids an ad and not show the other half the ad and see whether that makes a difference. It would be unethical. It's impractical because we know enough from our behavioural science point of view to know that you don't just show a kid an advertisement, and then the next minute he or she will stick a cigarette in his or her mouth. It's not that simple. It's a much more complex influence process. Because of that, no single experiment can ever grab all of the different things that influence kids.

We're not looking for a definitive study as the proof of how marketing affects kids. Rather, we look at the weight and the consistency of the evidence from all the different studies out there looking at different pieces in the puzzle.

In this report I've talked about that as an ecological approach to science. We're trying to study kids in their natural environment, to observe them in context as these things are happening. It's a well-known scientific method with as much credibility as experiments. It's simply a different way of trying to get a handle on complex issues.

When we reviewed some hundred-odd studies and the major reviews that I talked about earlier for our report this spring, we basically came to five conclusions, five major pieces in the puzzle. First, there is strong evidence that tobacco advertising appeals to kids. They like it and it fits in with the developmental challenges they're trying to deal with as adolescents. They are very much aware of tobacco marketing from as young as six years of age. The more they are aware and the more positive their perceptions of marketing, the more likely it is that they're going to smoke later on down the road. There is clear evidence that the tobacco marketing campaigns increase youth tobacco use. Finally, youths are especially likely to smoke highly marketed brands. I'd be glad to discuss the specific research leading to any of those conclusions with you.

The final thing I've done in this brief submission is just provided a snapshot of two of the most recent studies that have been published since our final report was submitted to Health Canada in the spring. The first is from David Altman in the U.S. He's the author of the forthcoming Surgeon General's report on marketing. He described a national study of youth that did a couple of important things. First of all, it looked at the promotion of tobacco products. What that means is whether kids are saving coupons, getting caps, getting cigarette lighters and things like that. The reason promotion is important from a scientific perspective is because we can measure it. We can see it. A cap is a cap. A catalogue is a catalogue. Unlike some of the impacts that marketing has on kids and their attitudes, feelings and values, this one's easy to measure.

The second reason this is important is because it established a dose and response relationship. That's technical. What it means is the more the kids are involved in marketing, the more likely it is that they're going to smoke. At the bottom of the table on page two, just being aware of tobacco marketing doubled the likelihood that kids were going to be susceptible to smoking. If they also had a friend, it was triple. If they had a friend and had participated in promotions, it went to ninefold. And if they had gone so far as to receive a free tobacco sample, it was twenty-one fold.

.1215

The other study I wanted to highlight for you is the one by Rick Pollay, who is a professor of marketing at UBC. He collaborated with the U.S. Centre for Disease Control to look at a very complex set of data that looks at what brand preferences were over a course of 15 years, taking samples, national surveys, the views and attitudes and behaviour. He basically was able to conclude that youth are three times as susceptible to the effects of tobacco marketing as are adults.

Our panel of international experts concluded that the weight and the consistency of the evidence does strongly support the conclusion that marketing plays a significant role in youth tobacco use.

Mr. Chairman, that's it for my opening remarks.

The Chairman: Grant Hill.

Mr. Hill: Thanks very much.

I'm sure you heard the previous testimony, which was suggestive that sponsorship is not a form of marketing. Can you say categorically whether or not that argument has any weight?

Dr. Best: It makes no sense to a social scientist.

Basically the reason kids are smoking is because it's doing attractive things for them. It's helping them with their needs for affiliation, for feeling independent and grown-up, for feeling one of the peer group. It helps them control their weight. It helps them feel free and easy. So they're buying into those lifestyle kinds of factors. Those are issues that are important to kids, because they're kids. They've got nothing to do with tobacco itself. If they weren't taking risks and smoking they'd be taking risks some other way. But because tobacco marketing basically promotes the kind of lifestyle youth aspire to, any kind of marketing, whether it be advertising, sponsorship or promotion that contributes to that lifestyle or that image, is constructing a meaning for tobacco that helps kids. They find that attractive and it influences them to try it because it's something they aspire to.

Mr. Hill: You can categorically say and say here today that sponsorship is marketing for the tobacco companies.

Dr. Best: Yes.

Mr. Hill: Okay, that is important for us to have heard from a social scientist.

You've also said, and I'm convinced this is true, that youth are risk takers. If they will take other risks, I presume that you would prefer they took the risk of driving too fast because that has a lower long-term effect upon their lifespan.

Dr. Best: We certainly heard this morning that there's no one single thing that we need to get control of in terms of health other than smoking - it's the number one. I'm not going to encourage my kids to drive fast just because I also encouraged them not to smoke. But yes, I think it is true that if kids are not smoking they will be experimenting in other ways, whether it's jumping off the garage roof - as I did when I was a kid - or racing my bike too fast down the hill or whatever. They'll take risks, they'll get hurt.

Mr. Hill: But as a parent and as a social scientist both you would focus your efforts on this area first and put your legislative efforts here, I presume.

Dr. Best: Yes.

Mr. Hill: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ms Picard.

Ms Picard: Mr. Best, I noticed in your document - and I have only one page in French, because we are in such a hurry that I haven't been given the French version - that the studies in question were conducted in the United States with 1,047 young people. However, the U.S. regulations are not the same as those in effect in Quebec.

You talk about the lifestyle associated with smoking. You are right in that many young people of my generation began to smoke because of the beautiful lady they saw with a cigarette holder and a cigarette. It was associated with a certain elegance or, in the case of young boys, with automobile racing.

In the United States, stringent measures were recently adopted because no such standards existed regarding advertising. Our children, like my two daughters in their twenties, have not identified with that lifestyle. They do not smoke.

.1220

I wonder why we make comparisons between what happens in the United States and what happens in Canada. At the present time, in terms of sponsorship of major events, there are many people who tell us that there is no such association whereas others argue that there is. I myself have not seen any thorough study establishing that sponsorship has any significant impact on a young person who doesn't smoke. He or she is not going to begin to smoke because he goes to the international tennis tournament sponsored by du Maurier. Is the Molson Stadium in Montreal going to encourage young people to drink beer because of its name?

Take the case of the Théâtre du Maurier. Will the people who go to this theatre being to smoke du Maurier cigarettes? You have to be serious and give us evidence regarding sponsorship of major events.

[English]

Dr. Best: You've raised several important questions. The first is whether or not we should be paying attention to U.S. data. I have to decide whether I want to answer that as a scientist or as a Canadian. As a Canadian, I am disappointed that we have not funded more tobacco research, that we do not have nearly the weight of evidence in Canada as we have in the U.S. On the other hand, as a scientist I know that American kids are not very different from Canadian kids. There has been enough study of what adolescent development is like in the two countries to know that fundamentally we're talking about the same kids. There's no meaningful difference in the kinds of things that are important to them and the kinds of things that have influence on them.

There are some differences in the research we have. For example, we know that Canadian youth are more aware of the health warnings on packages than they are in the U.S. We've done a better job there, so we have had an impact.

The second question you raise is how we are going to prove that sponsorship has an influence on youth. That's a complex question and it's a difficult one. The first answer, and I say this with all respect, is to suggest that we ask ourselves what kind of study we would look at and what kind of study would satisfy us in terms of proof. The difficulty is that I, as a social scientist, cannot imagine that study.

Again, there are some fundamental reasons for that. The first reason is because many things go into influencing children as they grow up. It's no one thing. For example, when my daughter started smoking when she was 14, there were a lot of things that went into that. We had just moved to another city and she was looking for new kids. It was a way of affiliating with a group she wanted to affiliate with for other reasons, and most of them smoked. There's no question she was at that age, 13 or 14, when she was struggling with self-esteem and anything that was going to make her feel she had more control over her life was something she would do.

So what are the single things that influenced her to experiment? She doesn't smoke now, thank goodness, but she certainly went through that phase. I can't tease out what the ones were that made a difference. I know it was a whole complex of things that did. I don't know what kind of study it would be that would satisfy us. Fundamentally, I don't believe those kinds of studies are possible. That's why I opened by talking about ecological research or studying kids in their natural environment, looking at all those complexities and building the pieces.

One thing I could refer you to that might help is the attachment to the brief submission towards the back. You'll find a résumé form at the very back. In front of that there are some tables that summarize the research on specific questions, and then there's a figure. Let me just refer to it briefly. It's complex. You don't need to know the details, but let me tell you how it works.

.1225

This is the framework we use for looking at the research evidence that is available. Down the middle you see the marketing process, as we understand it. You'll have heard about marketing and the emphasis it places on product, promotion, price and place. On the other side is tobacco use. That's what happens when kids start smoking.

But there are stages in the middle. It doesn't happen all at once. First kids start to become aware of tobacco advertisement. They start to develop some perceptions in terms of what sorts of benefits smoking might have for them, such as whether it fits in with the developmental things that are important, how common it is for people to be smoking, whether it is something everybody's doing, a legitimate thing to do in our society, and what some of the risks are.

Depending on the decisions, the results of that process, then kids are going to form some definite interests or attitudes. Whether they are going to smoke or not will depend a lot on what functional meaning it has for them. I mentioned, for example, in my daughter's case I think it had a significant meaning around affiliation and around feeling grown-up and independent. Each kid will be different in terms of the value they place on it. That in turn will lead to the desires and interest in smoking and finally to experimentation, and so on.

You'll see the environment itself and a whole lot of things that are going on out there, not just around smoking but belonging to a peer group, the pressure to do what the peer group wants you to do, what other adult models are doing, what sports figures are doing, what's happening in the arts, other marketing that's going on, counter-advertising, cost, and demographics, all those things that are in the environment and have an influence. Similarly, there are the things going on in the kid, in terms of the sort of family they come from, whether or not their parents smoke and what their developmental needs are.

This sounds very complex. Let me assure you, this is simple. I can't grasp in a figure how complex it is for an individual kid over time. What we can do is look at this and understand that as the pieces in the puzzle fit together, we gain a weight of proof that sponsorship affects kids. But we cannot say the Molson Indy affected Johnny smoking. We don't know that, and I can't figure out how to study it.

The Chairman: I have no other interventions. I thank the witness from the Canadian Cancer Institute of Canada, Dr. Best, for his time. Thank you.

We invite the final witness of the session to come to the table. It is Mr. Raymond Greenwood, the chair of the Vancouver Fireworks Society. Thank you, Mr. Greenwood, for coming. Do you have an opening statement?

Mr. Raymond Greenwood (Chair, Vancouver Fireworks Society): I do indeed, thank you.

My name is Raymond Greenwood and I'm the chairman of the Vancouver Fireworks Society, which is the host of the Benson and Hedges Symphony of Fire. I am a volunteer with the event. It has now been going for seven years in Vancouver on the shores of English Bay, where we have approximately 1.5 million people watch our event. Previous to the Symphony of Fire, I was a volunteer chairman of the Vancouver Sea Festival, which, due to lack of sponsorship, is now a bankrupt organization. Also, I'm the past president of a group called the Vancouver AM Tourist Services, which actually is a breakfast group that meets every Friday morning, as it does also here in Ottawa. So I have a little bit of insight.

My event has been going for seven years now, and I think you received a statement from Tourism Vancouver. They did an independent survey on the event, which you probably have in front of you. The event generated $9.2 million in economic benefit to the city of Vancouver. It paid approximately $5.4 million in wages and salaries, $15 million in industry output, and most important it paid $3.4 million in taxes to the three levels of government. It is obviously a major tourist attraction now. We have people coming from throughout North America to our event. We certainly have people coming from all over British Columbia and Canada. Just the other day we had a tourist information clerk phoning to say that our brochure is the most sought after when the tourist comes through the border.

.1230

I met with the Canadian consulates when they were in Vancouver last year, and the tourism counsellors from the consulates throughout North America say a great deal of interest is shown in our event.

So it is a major tourist event. As I said, it is held on the shores of English Bay. It's a long way. Mr. Dhaliwal knows exactly the distance, and it's a huge shore. I'm not quite sure whether you would call it a site.

I think the Government of Canada is doing a fantastic job in tourism promotion. The Prime Minister was out last year and I believe gave $20 million for the budget to tourism through Judd Buchanan. He is fully aware of our event. I believe he has even attended it, and we did one year have a prime minister attend our event.

I have to say that if this bill is passed, it will be the end of the Symphony of Fire in Vancouver, without a doubt. Benson and Hedges gives us $2 million to put on our event. We have two other small sponsors and there are no other sponsors that I know of who will come to the table with $2 million.

Yesterday you heard from the Molson Indy and the Formula One event, and it's quoted in The Globe and Mail today and The Ottawa Citizen that it will be cancelled. Honestly, if the events go down, I believe it's the government's responsibility.

My event is a family event. I make no bones about that. I have a ten-year-old son who attends it every night. But I have to say I do not feel for one minute it makes children go out and smoke. We do not offer cigarettes at English Bay.

This is the total amount of promotion we do, along with the poster. You will see there's not one package of cigarettes ever mentioned in the event. I'm happy to pass that around. It is, as I say, a family event. If the government can show me that sponsoring the Symphony of Fire makes kids smoke, I'll be very happy to read that material, because as of now I see nothing.

You mentioned earlier about the blueprint. We have met with Dr. Hedy Fry, the committee in Vancouver, on three occasions. We requested this in the last nine months and nothing yet has come through. It's my opinion that public policy shouldn't be based on speculation.

I am from western Canada and I'm proud of that. We don't have too many members there, but I've been watching with great interest that the federal government is about to save 16,000 jobs at Canadian Airlines. To protect thousands of other jobs in the arts and sports sector, this is at risk because of this Bill C-71. Again I should stress to you, sir, that we only received it in Vancouver last Wednesday. We never got the bill, and I'm not quite sure why there is a major rush on it.

This bill, as currently written, will make it impossible for me to promote my event through Vancouver, Canada, and around the world. So again, I say to you, I don't understand how my event makes people smoke.

I appreciate what Benson and Hedges do for us and what they have done for seven years, and so does Tourism Vancouver. I think you've read a letter from them today as well, and the gentleman who wrote that letter is the chairman of the visitors and convention bureau of Canada.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Greenwood.

My usual interveners at this time are otherwise occupied, so I'll just give them a minute to finish what they're doing. In the meantime, I have a question and I'm going to recognize the member for Vancouver South, a fellow countryman of yours, and then I'll go to Mrs. Picard and Mr. Hill, in that order.

First of all, Mr. Greenwood, you mentioned, quite categorically I thought, that if the bill is passed, you lose the $2 million from Benson and Hedges. I take it that you've been told that.

Mr. Greenwood: Sir, they cannot advertise. The bill, from what I've read, limits them immensely to advertise.

The Chairman: There is a difference. You're saying they can't advertise. The bill I read said they would be limited in their advertising in some way.

Mr. Greenwood: They would be limited, Mr. Chairman, to 10%.

The Chairman: Yes. My question is about the potential loss, the projected loss of the $2 million in sponsorship funding. Is that an assumption on your part, or have you been told that would be the case if the bill is passed?

.1235

Mr. Greenwood: No, it's an assumption, Mr. Chairman. It's what I read in the press today in three newspapers in the city here. They all said Indy may pull the two races.

The Chairman: You also said that, in your opinion, these events don't make kids smoke. Maybe you could give us the benefit of your wisdom on this issue. Tobacco companies, I'm told, spend $50 million or $60 million in sponsorship. What do you think is their motivation for doing that?

Mr. Greenwood: I don't know, sir, because I'm not in the business of promoting tobacco. I'm promoting an event. But it's my understanding it's to protect their market share of their particular product.

The Chairman: Are you aware of...? I mention this in the context of your use of the term ``speculative''. You didn't feel these policies ought to be made on the basis of speculation as to what might be the case. Let me give you something that is not at all speculative.

It's well documented that 40,000 Canadians die annually as a result of smoking. Do you have any reason to doubt that figure, first of all?

Mr. Greenwood: No, sir.

The Chairman: You understand, then, that our real motivation here, both as a government and as a committee, doesn't have to do with shutting down events such as yours. It has to do with the health issue here. We're groping for a way to do it while at the same time not adversely affecting the economy or the number of jobs. But surely you recognize that if it's a choice between life and jobs, any government worth its salt has only one choice to make.

We understand that 40,000 people die annually from smoking. I want to put to you the question that I put to somebody else yesterday. I do it bluntly: one, to make the point, and two, to elicit what I hope will be a gut response from you.

Are you saying yes, you understand a lot of people die, but you need the money?

Mr. Greenwood: No, sir. I never said that. I mean, people drink. Do they die from driving? Are we going to stop drinking as well?

If you are going to stop tobacco, well, legalize it, make it a legal product. But these are events where, as I said earlier, we are not making people smoke. If you go down to English Bay there's not one cigarette to be seen by a supplier.

The Chairman: Was it your suggestion to make it an illegal product? Is that what you said?

Mr. Greenwood: No. I said that if you're saying it is an illegal product, well, then, that's what the government should do. But I do not believe my event is killing people.

The Chairman: But do you see making tobacco an illegal product as an option? Is that what you're suggesting?

Mr. Greenwood: No, sir.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ms Picard.

Ms Picard: Mr. Greenwood, I am sorry that I did not hear all your presentation, but from your discussions with the chairman, I concluded that you were a representative of a major activity in your part of the country.

I am a member of the Official Opposition and we agree with the principle of reducing smoking and seeking to ensure that our young people do not begin to smoke. However, I would like to assure you that, as regards your area of activity, the Official Opposition will do its utmost to identify interim measures in support of cultural and sports events. Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Greenwood: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dhaliwal): Mr. Hill.

Mr. Hill: Mr. Greenwood, I know you have the best motives at heart here. The previous witness stated categorically that sponsorship was a form of marketing. Do you accept that sponsorship has anything whatever to do with marketing the tobacco product?

.1240

Mr. Greenwood: Again, Dr. Hill, I have not seen anything on that, and I've requested it now on three separate occasions. We actually requested it six months ago from Minister Dingwall's office as well.

Mr. Hill: I'm not talking about studies now; I'm talking about you as an individual. Do you accept that sponsorship of your event is part of a marketing strategy for tobacco companies?

Mr. Greenwood: Again, sir, I don't speak for the tobacco industry. I speak for my own event. I want my event - as well as, I should stress, 30 other events in the city - to survive. They cannot get the dollars from anywhere else these days.

Mr. Hill: I'll try a third time, if I could. Do you accept that the tobacco marketing efforts are dependent upon your event, that one single event doesn't make or break the marketing, but that your event is part of a marketing strategy?

Mr. Greenwood: It's part of a sponsorship. As I said earlier, they're there to protect their brand share. So yes, I would agree with you on that.

Mr. Hill: So you accept that the marketing strategy of a tobacco company involves your event?

Mr. Greenwood: Yes.

Mr. Hill: If you had a choice, would you prefer to have another sponsor?

Mr. Greenwood: No, because Benson and Hedges in seven years has been a first-class sponsor.

Mr. Hill: So if another sponsor came along that was first-class, would you prefer to have another sponsor?

Mr. Greenwood: No, because I'm extremely happy with Benson and Hedges.

Mr. Hill: If sponsorship diminishes in the world over time for tobacco companies, would you be happy to have another sponsor from another line of endeavour?

Mr. Greenwood: I'd be extremely happy.

Mr. Hill: Is Benson and Hedges your only sponsor?

Mr. Greenwood: They are the title sponsor. You'll notice that Agfa supplies some, and I believe Air Canada is one. Air Canada is extremely happy to be involved.

Mr. Hill: What is the percentage for Benson and Hedges?

Mr. Greenwood: They are the total sponsor. It's my understanding that the others supply product and other promotional support.

Mr. Hill: I'd love to see your little.... It's going around, is it?

Mr. Greenwood: Yes.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dhaliwal): Mr. Scott.

Mr. Scott: It occurs to me that to some extent this debate is focused on the very simple question of whether or not your sponsorship has the outcome of having more kids exposed to or possibly taking up smoking. One of the responses we get from those who challenge that notion is that they don't see any evidence of any kid coming to their coliseum, rink or event and seeing a sign and feeling a compulsion to smoke.

I have a letter here written by Tourism Vancouver about this issue, and at the bottom of the letter it says ``Vancouver, Spectacular by Nature''. Is that a good slogan, in your mind?

Mr. Greenwood: It's a great slogan, sir, and I'd love to invite you to come and look at Vancouver.

Mr. Scott: I think it's a good slogan too, but I don't feel any compulsion to fly to Vancouver right now. My point is this: why would you measure the effectiveness of a du Maurier ad in the coliseum any differently than you would measure the effectiveness of that ad? That ad does not cause me to go to Vancouver. It simply leaves me with an impression that Vancouver is a wonderful place and someday I might go there. That's the way these ads are designed to work. They're not necessarily designed to cause me to get up out of my place and buy a ticket. They're simply designed to leave an impression.

Why would you measure the effectiveness of a du Maurier ad any differently than you would measure the effectiveness of that ad - or for that matter, the effectiveness of one of my lawn signs? There are 2,200 of them all over my riding and all they say is ``Andy Scott, Liberal''. They don't say that I'm a good person. They speak nothing about anything I've ever done. It's just name recognition. It is designed to be part of a broader strategy.

.1245

That's the curious question we're forced to deal with. We cannot say that anybody voted for me because of that ad, or that anybody ever visited Vancouver because of that slogan, or that any kid ever took up smoking because Players has race cars. However, it's part of a broader strategy that clearly the city of Vancouver thinks works. Everybody around this table, including the member from Drummond, I assume, has lawn signs. In a whole bunch of other places in this country we accept that argument. Why don't we accept that argument here?

Mr. Greenwood: I'm not sure what your question is, sir.

Mr. Scott: It's about the viability of name recognition as an advertising element. The fact is that ``Spectacular by Nature'', as you just said, is a very good slogan. It has an effect. It leaves a good impression. It doesn't cause me to fly off to Vancouver right now, but everybody who is arguing that du Maurier signs at tennis matches don't cause kids to smoke or need a cigarette use that as the measure of the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of those ads. But you don't apply that same measure to ``Spectacular by Nature''. You accept that it's intended to be a subtle message that Vancouver is a great place. But why would you measure a du Maurier ad in a tennis match any differently than you would measure that?

Mr. Greenwood: Well, sir, first of all I'd look at the weather forecast today and I'd see that it's plus nine in Vancouver today. It made me want to go out there right away after a walk in the snow today. Secondly, there's lots of great snow up at Whistler where you could go skiing.

Sir, I am looking after the Benson and Hedges event, which is a great tourist attraction. We are bringing so many dollars into the city and creating a great festival. I cannot understand why this committee even wants to think about banning sponsorship.

Mr. Scott: We don't. It's not about banning sponsorship. It's about banning advertising, limiting advertising.

Mr. Greenwood: I should also say to you, and it was mentioned earlier by the committee chairman, that 30 other people would have liked to be at these hearings this week. With all due respect, I got notified at 10:10 a.m. yesterday that I could appear here today. So there were a lot of people, and unfortunately this has been rushed through in the last five days. There are a lot more people in Vancouver who would like to be here or would like this committee to go to Vancouver, which is a normal thing, and speak to the citizens of British Columbia about it.

Mr. Scott: But ultimately isn't the argument that they don't think advertising affects...? Isn't that what this is all about?

We understand the impacts. I have a theatre. I have a jazz and blues festival in my own constituency, so I understand the impact. No one's arguing the impact, I don't think. What we're trying to find out here is whether or not what we're attempting to do would affect behaviour among young Canadians. The people who argue in support of those organizations don't believe it does. Otherwise, they wouldn't be participating. So I was just asking the question of why we measure this kind of advertising any differently than we measure other kinds of advertising.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dhaliwal): I think Ray has tried to respond as best he could.

We have one more questioner, Mr. Paul Szabo. I wonder if you could make it short, Mr. Szabo. Thank you.

Mr. Szabo: Mr. Greenwood, you seem to me to be the right guy to be promoting your event. You are doing a very good job. You're doing your job and we appreciate that. It's important that you're sticking to your guns and doing your job.

We're having this problem because - you know what? The tobacco industry refuses to appear before the committee. They're the ones I really want to ask the questions to. So unfortunately, groups that represent the arts, etc., have maybe inadvertently or without knowing it kind of been put in the role of defending the other side, and that's unfortunate. You understand that and we understand that.

But you did say things like ``you're rushing this through''. We've heard your point here from at least a dozen witnesses, the same words, the same arguments. I don't know how many people have to say it. Whether you need 4,000 or 10, the message is the message.

The blueprint the government put out in December 1995 said with regard to sponsorship that there will be restrictions designed to limit lifestyle appeal while leaving some incentive for sponsorship. That was the policy. That was the intent a year ago.

.l250

The sponsorship segment in the bill says that all brand-identifiable items will be limited to the bottom 10% of the advertisement, and that brand-name and brand-identifiable promotion of the event will be permitted in adult publications in direct mailings and on site. In other words, the legislation is precisely - precisely - what the government declared its intent was one year ago.

Now, sir, in fairness, can you really say that you haven't had notice, that you had no time to prepare this, that this has been rushed on the issue you are talking to us about, the only issue, that of sponsorship?

Mr. Greenwood: Yes, sir, I can, and I'll tell you why. The alliance asked for a meeting with Mr. Dingwall. We were granted a half-hour meeting. We have requested many meetings with Minister Sheila Copps to discuss the blueprint. To this day we have not had a meeting, in one year. We met with Hedy Fry. She has been very gracious to us.

We asked again for the committee.... In fact, we were told, never mind asked, that the committee would come to Vancouver in the normal process to discuss all our concerns.

No, we have not had enough time. We only got the bill and all the items last Wednesday. You read the blueprint line about ``limited'' sponsorship; it didn't say to 10%. It will take $60 million out of the Canadian economy. I guarantee you it will.

I talked to the general manager of the Molson Indy before I left. He said that would be the end. I met with Greg Moore's father. He said Greg Moore and Villeneuve became successful because of the Players driving program. I am not a driving enthusiast, so I don't know too much about it, but it was very clear.

Mr. Szabo: One last question, Mr. Greenwood. Again, you're doing a great job. The people in Vancouver should know you're doing a very good job on behalf of the Benson and Hedges fireworks display. But it is fireworks, and to me, fireworks is associated with children. This is the audience.

Whether you accept it or not, 85% of all new smokers become smokers by the age of 16. Your sponsor is a tobacco sponsor. You have to believe - you have to believe - that when 85% of your market is young people, they wouldn't be spending the money on your event if they didn't think it would have some effect. It's only logic. I wish you would at least concede that there may be some impact.

Maybe I should rely on the Canadian Cancer Society, on Health Canada, on the Canadian Medical Association and all the others who have done hundreds of studies to show the linkages between messaging and lifestyle and tobacco use, the prevalence of tobacco use.

I wish you would, as an ordinary citizen, setting aside the other good job you're doing, just as a parent, as a Canadian concerned about the health of all Canadians, concede one little iota that maybe, just maybe, this is contributing to the problem.

Mr. Greenwood: I would agree with that, sir, but I would also say, if you read an editorial comment in The Globe and Mail the other day, a columnist said she started to smoke without going to any of our events. She smoked through peer pressure at 14 years of age. So I definitely know our event does not make people go out and smoke.

Seeing a Players Indy car going around at 150 miles an hour isn't going to tell a kid to smoke. I really don't think so.

The Chairman: Mr. Greenwood, I'm going to recognize, as the final member to grill you, your friend from Vancouver South, Herb Dhaliwal. Before I do, though, your last comment gives me the opening to go back for a moment to the issue I was raising before, when I put to you the question - perhaps tongue-in-cheek - of why you think the tobacco companies spend $50 million or $60 million on sponsorship. Is it out of the goodness of their heart or is it because they have another motivation?

You responded that you understood it was because they were fighting over market share. I'm sure you believe that. But let me just walk you, in about two sentences, through the following, and see if you still believe the line you've been given on market share.

.1255

A witness from the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council was here yesterday, and he told this committee that 90% of smokers are locked into a brand and that tobacco companies are fighting over the other 10%. He also told us that 1% of market share represents $22 million worth of product. Multiply 10 by $22 million and you'll quickly figure out that the total amount they're fighting over is $220 million worth of market share.

So if one of those companies, through sponsoring an event like yours, crowds out all the others and grabs all the market share, it hasn't recouped, in the $220 million in product - and obviously that's not profit, that's total product - all the millions they've spent in tobacco advertising and sponsorships.

I say this to you and to the companies: the argument that the sponsorship issue is only tied to market share is bogus. It's naive for anybody to even give us that argument and expect a rational person to believe it in the first place. There's more to it than that. In my own view, it has to do with encouraging people to begin smoking, but I want to know what your view is on that subject.

Mr. Greenwood: I stated earlier, sir, that I'm only concerned about my event and the events in Vancouver. And I don't think my event makes people go out and smoke.

The Chairman: Herb Dhaliwal.

Mr. Dhaliwal: First of all, let me thank Ray for coming. I know it's always tough to leave Vancouver when you have nine-degree temperatures and golfing weather.

I also want to say that I've been to the event a number of times. It's an excellent event. It's a highlight of the summer.

I know that one of the concerns of the committee is how this is going to affect people like you who put on a first-class event with one of the tobacco companies as your major sponsor.

And you know that each event has a different effect on people. Your event probably has the least effect, because people are out on the shore and they don't see any advertising when they see the fireworks. Basically, they see the fireworks and then they go home. I've taken my kids and my family. We get on a boat, we watch the fireworks and we go back home. We don't really see much advertising.

So there is a variance, and some events will have more effects than others. Probably one that has the least effect is the fireworks.

But the reality is that in order for the tobacco business to stay in business for the long term they must have new smokers. And if they can get people smoking between the ages of 16 and 19, they have customers for the next 25 years. In business, if you can get a customer for the next 25 years, that's money in the bank.

Look at the advertising. We saw some Joe Camel packages that were very colourful and are very appealing to young kids who are 13, 14 and 15 years of age. It's pretty clear to us that a major strategy of the tobacco industry is go after youth - and there is an increase in smoking among youths - so that it will have clients for the next 25 years. That's pretty good business. From a business point of view they're doing the right thing.

But from a health standpoint, it's a very bad thing for Canadians. As parliamentarians we have to look at the broader, long-term view. That's part of our job as parliamentarians. We can't just look down at our feet. We have to look ahead, and you want us to do that as parliamentarians.

You're right when you say a lot of the advertising is very subtle. Just because the advertising is there kids don't say ``Oh, we're going to buy a Benson and Hedges cigarette and smoke it.'' It's a slow and subtle process, which after time moves the young people to smoke. With the number of people who are dying from smoking I think everybody accepts the fact that smoking a serious health hazard. And as parliamentarians we have to do something.

People like you who have these events and have these sponsors are a concern for us. We don't have a solution to help you right now, but if you have anything to help.... I hope they will continue to support your event. It's a great event. I think the tobacco companies will be put to the test as well. Are they really sponsoring your event because it's a great event? They still can sponsor your event, bu they will have to cut back on the advertising.

.1300

Those corporations that are strong corporate citizens support the community and support community events like yours and will continue to sponsor those events. I think there will be a public backlash against the tobacco companies if they say they're not going to sponsor you any more and you don't have an event. What is the backlash from the public going to be? It won't be very good for the tobacco companies.

I think they will continue to support it, and I hope they do, because I think it's important for Vancouver. It's a great event. It's a wonderful event. I hope you can still continue to do it.

But as members of Parliament we have a much broader mandate and we must have a long-term vision to deal with this issue. I hope that explains our view and I hope your event continues.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Do you have anything final to say?

Mr. Greenwood: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

I think the Government of Canada is going to have a major backlash on its hands when the citizens of Canada realize what is happening here. Without any debate across Canada, that $60 million will go out of the community. The du Maurier Jazz Festival in Vancouver, the Molson Indy, the Music in the Morning, the Symphony of Fire, the tennis tournaments, the golf tournaments and many other events...when people realize what's happening we're going to have a lot of upset citizens.

For four nights in Vancouver, people love the Symphony of Fire. Please do not stop the sponsorship of these events or even limit them, because that's what you're doing. It's so badly written - and the laws are going to be made later - that they won't sponsor our events any more. The Symphony of Fire in Vancouver, in Toronto - you heard from Max Beck yesterday - and in Montreal will probably be gone.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ray. We appreciate your comments. I have no doubt you believe what you say, particularly in your closing comment.

I too want to make a closing comment in the same vein. It's a fairly sad commentary on where we are today that we need something that kills 40,000 people annually to save arts and sports in this country. I don't believe that's the case, but one of these days, either you or I will be proven correct.

I thank you very much for being here today.

For the record, I want to recognize the presence in the committee of my good friend from Esquimalt - Juan de Fuca, Dr. Keith Martin.

Now, then, I want to have a quick word with the committee. I suggest that we recess for a brief period. We're slated to begin our clause-by-clause now. I understand from the clerk and staff that a little time is needed to make the transition from the hearing to the clause-by-clause analysis of the bill. In addition, we may want to compare notes on what kinds of amendments we may be contemplating at the clause-by-clause stage.

With that in view, I suggest that we recess until 1:30 p.m.

Monsieur Dubé.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé (Lévis): I would agree to taking a break because I am feeling a bit unwell, but I would like to establish one fact.

Mr. Scott, with his usual skill, tried to demonstrate that studies on sponsorships do exist, whereas the Minister himself, Mr. Dingwall, admitted last Thursday that there weren't any. The studies covered promotion and advertising. I would like to remind you of that. This was confirmed by the witnesses. If there is in fact a specific study on this topic, it should be submitted to us so that we can read it. Let's not try to incorporate all of this in some sort of scholarly demonstration. Don't say that there is a link between the increase in smoking and sponsorships. I was not there and I apologize for this. This is the only intervention that I wanted to make.

.1305

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Dubé.

On many occasions I resisted the temptation to try to edit questions from the members of the committee. I think it's the right of each member of the committee to phrase his or her questions in his or her own words. I also felt that the hearing was a time to hear witnesses, not to debate among ourselves. However, I take what Mr. Dubé has said as maybe a point of clarification or a point of order.

In view of the fact that Andy Scott was directly involved in the comment, he might want to make a brief response. I don't want to get into a debate here, folks.

Andy, if you want to make an intervention, please do so, briefly.

Mr. Scott: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I'm happy that Monsieur Dubé is feeling better.

Probably the best way to answer the question is simply this: there are roughly 308 studies in alphabetical order. So without any selective choice, this is what they're called. I'm just going to read a couple of titles. I'm not going to read 308 of them, Mr. Chair, don't worry.

A voice: Oh, read them all!

Mr. Scott: Here are some of the titles: ``Compliance for Kids: A community-based tobacco prevention project''; ``A Study to Measure the Impact of the Tobacco Control Act''; ``Ontario Tobacco Use and Policy Attitudes''; ``Reinforcing Effects of Cigarette Advertising on Under-aged Smoking'', from the British Journal of Addiction; ``Predisposing Effects of Cigarette Advertising on Children's Intentions to Smoke When Older'', also from the British Journal of Addiction; ``Children's Perceptions of Advertisements for Cigarettes'', from the Social Science & Medicine journal.

These are very on-target studies. I can only refer the member to them. I suspect all of them, at a general level, touch on the topic, and many of them are very specific about the effects of advertising on the behaviour of children as it relates to tobacco. I think that makes them relevant. I don't think the Canadian Council on Smoking and Health is going to bring these articles forward to us unless they support the council's arguments. I don't think the tobacco association or the growers or the tobacco manufacturers would bring them forward.

There has been a lot of study around the issue, and I thought that point should be made.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

I'm going to declare about a 20-minute recess.

.1308

.1347

The Chairman: Order, please. We'll now proceed to the clause-by-clause process for the bill.

For the record, maybe we should find out who's here from the department. Judy Ferguson, would you tell us who is with you?

Ms Judy Ferguson (Director General, Health Policy and Information, Department of Health): Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With me are Chris McNaught, legal counsel; France Pégeot, director of the office of tobacco control; and Louise Maguire-Wellington, legal counsel.

The Chairman: At this end of the table, for the information of the committee, we have several individuals in addition to our regular people. They include Marie Carrière, legislative clerk; Charles Bellemare, legislative clerk; Pierre Rodrigue, clerk; Laura Snowball, researcher; and Claude Blanchette, researcher.

You know the other person who is absent temporarily. She's one of our regular researchers, Nancy Miller Chenier. We hope the committee will see fit to draw on the resources at the table to expedite the process, which is going to be a fairly long one. It can be even longer, depending on you, and maybe a little shorter, depending on you or depending on all of us.

As you can see, we have a lot of amendments before us. I'm going to call each clause and if I hear no intervention I shall declare the clause carried. If you have an amendment that you wish to move, the onus is on the individual member to move it at the appropriate time. My role as chairman will be to ask, in each case, whether we should carry the clause. Hearing no intervention, I will declare the clause carried and move on to the next one.

I won't engage in any direct trickery on this one. I'll attempt to give you a fair chance. But the other half of the bargain is to be alert so we don't have to keep returning to clauses that have been carried. Once the chair declares a clause carried, I hope we'll be through with it. I just say that in the interest of keeping this tidy. It has the potential to be a fairly messy process.

Let's concentrate on the substance of what we do here, rather than getting bogged down in some kind of a procedural morass just because we're not being sufficiently tidy. Let's do the best we can, but focus on the substance of what we want to do. I'll do my best to see that the niceties of the rules are observed.

.1350

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé.

Mr. Dubé: I do not know whether or not we can intervene with respect to clause 1. That is the title of the bill.

I had thought about presenting an amendment, but I haven't done so yet. Is this in order?

[English]

The Chairman: Sorry, I should have explained just a little further that the process at this stage is to begin with clause 2, proceed sequentially to the end of the clauses, and at the very end ask the committee whether clause 1 shall carry and whether the title will carry. That's the way it's done. As you'll recognize, clause 1 is simply the short title of the bill, and we do that at the very end. We complete the package, and then we put a name on it at the very end. That's why we do it that way.

So we're on clause 2.

Joe Volpe.

Mr. Volpe: I'd like to move, seconded by Mr. Dhaliwal, that clause 2 be accepted. The change that's there is a typographical one. I think all committee members will accept this one, evenDr. Martin. Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: No, no. It was only to change the English version. I would like Mr. Volpe to give us a short explanation.

Mr. Volpe: There is a spelling mistake. We are therefore going to be adding an``s'' to the word ``drug'' in the English version.

Mr. Dubé: Very well.

[English]

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Clause 2 as amended agreed to

Clauses 3 to 6 inclusive agreed to

On clause 7 - Regulations

The Chairman: Mr. Dubé.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: Clause 7 reads as follows:

7. The Governor in Council may make regulations

These words are repeated in various parts of the bill. This clause gives the minister a whole series of powers, because the Governor in Council is obviously the Cabinet. Nevertheless, several witnesses told us that they were not yet familiar with the regulations.

We agree that the minister must have the power to make regulations, however, as we will see a little bit later, every time that this expression is used, the minister gives himself more powers than he normally has. We think that this clause should be eliminated.

Furthermore, this bill makes absolutely no mention of the provinces or of the provincial Ministers of Health when in fact health is a provincial matter. We realize that because of precedents set in the various sectors, particularly with respect to certain products and drugs, the federal government has jurisdiction, but this is not mentioned anywhere. This is why we would like to eliminate that clause.

[English]

The Chairman: Paul Szabo.

Mr. Szabo: Mr. Chairman, the effect of the amendment is to delete subparagraphs 7(a)(i) and 7(a)(ii), and I wonder if Health Canada could explain to us -

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: Amendment BQ-1 is included in our documents. We are withdrawing it. This was a mistake.

.1355

[English]

The Chairman: The amendment has been withdrawn.

Mr. Dubé.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: We are withdrawing that. Instead, I move that clause 7 be deleted. We apologize, but we are obliged to work a bit fast.

[English]

The Chairman: I must say to the member that it's out of order to move that a clause be deleted. He can achieve the same effect by voting against the amendment.

Keith Martin.

Mr. Martin (Esquimalt - Juan de Fuca): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to remove subparagraphs 7(a)(i) and 7(a)(ii). I would just delete those two sections of clause 7 - basically lines 23 to 28.

The rationale behind this amendment is that since Bill C-71 is going to provide the government with the ability to regulate tobacco products, we feel that putting in those subparagraphs is actually going to restrict the government. They would restrict the government's ability to ban methanol cigarettes, or extra-long or slim cigarettes that appeal to young people in terms of their look, and also to control pH levels and levels of tar and nicotine. If we removed lines 23 to 28, it would give the government the powers to do what it intended to do with this bill.

The Chairman: Paul Szabo.

Mr. Szabo: Mr. Chairman, paragraph (a) says, ``establishing standards...including''. I take that to mean, ``and not limited to''. I would therefore ask the staff to clarify why they feel it's important to make reference to a couple of provisions that would have been included in the regs with regard to standards, but not all.

Ms Ferguson: I believe it's important to give the industry some certainty or some sense of what we intend to regulate or what we could regulate if and when the science in support of those regulations becomes available, as opposed to something very broad and unclear.

Mr. Szabo: Thank you.

The Chairman: Keith Martin.

Mr. Martin: To our colleagues from Health Canada, why do we wish to place restrictions on the government before we actually have the data? Why are we putting restrictions on the government's ability to regulate certain aspects of cigarettes?

Ms Ferguson: I think it's important that we establish the scope of the regulatory authority, and the areas in which we would be inclined to regulate if the science supports it.

Mr. Martin: But aren't we restricting things a little bit prematurely?

Ms Ferguson: I don't think so. I believe that paragraph 7(e) would enable us to broaden it if warranted - yes. As well, because it says, ``including'', what is listed here is illustrative but could be broader.

Mr. Martin: It's not restricted to the ability to regulate, to the things that I mentioned before.

Ms Ferguson: That's correct. It's ``establishing standards...including'', but this does give a sense of what we are contemplating with this provision.

Mr. Martin: And from a legal perspective, it would not restrict that in any way, shape or form, in your view.

Ms Ferguson: No.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Dubé, would you like to make a comment?

Mr. Dubé: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. We need some clarification. Earlier you said that a member could not move that a clause be deleted. I don't think that that is quite right, because at report stage or at other stages, we can move amendments to delete clauses.

I would like you to consult with a clerk because, if this is not true, I would like some clarification.

[English]

The Chairman: Just give me a moment to make sure I got the advice right the first time.

.1400

[Translation]

In Beauchesne, on page 214,

[English]

at section 698 - page 207 in the English version - it says:

An amendment which is out of order on any of the following grounds cannot be put from the chair:

Then we go down to subsection 698(6), which says:

An amendment to delete a clause is not in order, as the proper course is to vote against the clause standing part of the bill.

I couldn't have said it better myself, but I did anyway about five minutes ago.

Are you ready for the question? Shall the amendment carry?

An hon. member: That was withdrawn.

The Chairman: No, let's be clear. Mr. Dubé has withdrawn his amendment, but Mr. Martin's amendment stands.

Mr. Martin: That's correct.

The Chairman: We're voting on Mr. Martin's amendment to clause 7.

Amendment negatived

Clause 7 agreed to on division

Clause 8 agreed to

On clause 9 - Signs

The Chairman: Shall clause 9 carry?

Folks, you have a lot of paper in front of you. You have the large package of amendments, but there's a separate, slimmer version that will be helpful here. It has the number R-1.5 up in the right-hand corner, but the revised version of it is in this volume here.

Let's be clear that after this package was put together - the package that has page G-1 as its front page - there were some additional pages circulated. The document that has R-1.5 in the top right-hand corner of the first page replaces the pages in the larger document with the same numbers.

There is a similar document that is labelled BQ-1.5 on the first page. There are several pages here, and in each case the page, which is numbered in the top right-hand corner, replaces the appropriate numbered page in the larger document - replaces or supplements. In some cases they're new items, additional items.

Now that we're all absolutely clear, go ahead, Grant Hill.

Mr. Hill: This amendment would replace line 20 with:

is prohibited by law, and that contain a prescribed health message unless that retailer is

The rationale behind this is that a health message could be stated on these signs, and not only the information that is present here in the bill. This is done in many provinces. B.C., Ontario, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland currently require a health message on signs at the point of sale. This would just simply be on a retailer's sign, saying there are health hazards involved in this transaction.

The Chairman: Mr. Volpe.

Mr. Volpe: We had a couple of groups make some amendments in this regard. In its amendment, I think the Canadian Cancer Society reflected something that Dr. Hill was suggesting. The Non-Smokers' Rights Association has a slightly different view, but I think both of them have the same objective.

I'm wondering whether Dr. Hill would be amenable to looking at what we've proposed as an amendment to clause 9, wherein we take out -

Mr. Hill: Where would I find this?

.1405

Mr. Volpe: That's on the page subsequent to.... Sorry, it's in the large copy.

I'm going to give you a different set, if you don't mind. Just to make sure some of those are there, a more modern copy is being provided for you.

[Translation]

This is primarily in English. I apologize to Mr. Dubé and to his colleague. However, there are some parts in French.

[English]

I think you now have it before you, Grant. I think you'll find that clause 9, up to the word ``content'' on line 18, already captures the intent of the amendment from both organizations, but it is clarified by eliminating:

that inform the public that the sale or giving of a tobacco product to a young person is prohibited by law

Mr. Hill: Can you read for me how the new clause would read?

Mr. Volpe: I'm going to ask Mr. McNaught to give us some indication on clause 9....

Mr. Chris McNaught (Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Health): I believe, Dr. Hill, that it's proposed to read:

Every retailer shall post, at retail, in the prescribed place and manner, signs in the prescribed form and with the prescribed content, unless that retailer is exempted by the regulations from the requirement to post the sign.

Is that correct?

Mr. Volpe: That's correct, and that addresses part of the question that was asked by Dr. Martin a few moments ago on his amendment. What this does is very clearly and specifically say what is to be contained in the packages. It gives an indication of where the regulations would go, and at the same time it makes it a little tighter.

The Chairman: Well, folks, here's where we are procedurally. I have an amendment from Grant Hill and I have some information from Joe Volpe, but we can only have one amendment on the floor at a time. We're therefore dealing with Grant Hill's amendment at the moment.

Grant Hill, then Claude Bachand.

I should welcome our good friend Claude Bachand from Saint-Jean.

Mr. Bachand (Saint-Jean): Thank you.

Mr. Hill: The proposed amendment -

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. I must confess that I am quite uncomfortable. We have four documents. This is an example which demonstrates that, when you want to work too fast, you work poorly. First of all, we have not had enough time to read the document and, secondly, it has not been inserted in the same package.

I really want to co-operate, but I would suggest that somebody put all of this in order while we change rooms. This doesn't make sense. In addition, half of the documents have not been translated into French. I apologize, but I am not bilingual and, as a francophone, I am entitled to have equitable service.

[English]

The Chairman: First of all, the first part of the comment is half right and the second part of the comment is all wrong. In the document that you have there, the first page is identified as G-1 at the top. It does not contain half of the amendments. It has about 98% of them, and every last one of those is translated.

You're looking at a chair who is very firm on the issue of having documents in both official languages. What we did first was to have the staff take the amendments from the government members, the Bloc members and the Reform members, and put them in this - what shall I call it? - master document. They're all in two languages, and those are most of them.

.1410

After the fact, because we believe in democracy around here, we had some additional resolutions or amendments from the Bloc and Reform respectively - about half a dozen in one case and about three in the other. Rather than redoing this document at considerable expense and time, we're asking you to integrate as you go, as I explained a moment ago. Where it says 1.5 here, substitute another 1.5. Do that three times for that document. And where it says BQ here, change it about six times. It doesn't require a nuclear specialist to do that bit.

Now, I understand there's a lot of paper, but we're all dealing with the same problem. Yes, we have three or four documents, and what has kind of cluttered it some more is the fact that my friend from Eglinton - Lawrence just came in and said that, by the way, he has some more in addition to those four bits of paper.

Because Mr. Dubé does make the point that it is getting increasingly confusing here, I'm therefore going to suggest that if Mr. Volpe and other members have other amendments that are not in these three packages here - and we're all clear on how to integrate those three packages; you'll replace an R-15 with an R-15, etc. - but are in addition to these three, in fairness I must ask you to do what I asked you to do yesterday. Get them to the clerk so that they can be copied. So I give you notice now that we'll deal with these right now, this clause 9 and the amendment from Mr. Hill - which was put down on paper anyway - and the suggestion from Mr. Volpe. Otherwise, I will recess the committee until all members have copies of those proposed amendments on paper.

Now, I have speakers in this order: Mr. Bachand, I think Mr. Hill had his hand up, and then Mr. Volpe.

[Translation]

Mr. Bachand: Mr. Chairman, you gave an order. I think that we must all work with the same documents. If everyone knew which documents we were working with, we could set a certain number of them aside.

We have just been handed a document called G-1. You referred to it earlier. And I have another one which has just been handed to me by the government. Everyone agrees that this is an extremely important bill.

Tell us whether or not we could adjourn for a few minutes so that we can come to some understanding about the documents and then we will all be able to work with the same documents and we will be less confused than we are right now.

[English]

The Chairman: Folks, I don't think an adjournment is in order, but I'm in the hands of the committee. I'm an old teacher, you see, and maybe I can help you on this. May I suggest that when this document arrives, it shall be called - are you ready for this? - G-1.5? In addition to the bill itself, of course, you now have in front of you four sets of amendments. You can lay them out however you want, but there's your big set. It starts with G-1. It's a set of amendments proposed by government, Bloc and Reform members. They are annotated at the top right of the respective pages. That's your big book, your master book.

Into that one you have to integrate pages from three other documents from time to time. Not surprisingly, they are labelled G for government, BQ for Bloc Québécois, and R for Reform. You integrate them in the following fashion, and I give you a live demonstration. If you take the big document, the master document, appropriately labelled G -

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: The interpreters have told us that they have only one document and that another one is coming.

[English]

The Chairman: I've never done a dog-and-pony show bilingually before, so it's a problem. My apologies to the interpreters.

We have four documents: G-1, G-1.5, BQ-1.5, and R-1.5. The first of those four documents is your master list of proposed amendments. The other three documents, labelled G, BQ and R-1.5, are amendments that are either changes or additions to what's in this document.

.1415

What I've done with my copy, and what I suggest you do with your copy, is that I've taken, for example, the BQ-1.5 and I've gone to 1.5 in this big document and I've marked on it ``see the revised one''. So I know I have to deal with this version rather than the version in the thick document.

Does everybody have a copy of Mr. Volpe's latest document? Here it is now.

Monsieur Dubé.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: You are perhaps a wonderful professor, but given the language barrier, I would hope, and I know that we are entitled to ask this, Mr. Chairman, that you read the amendments, which are for the most part quite short. If the amendments are very long, we could dispense with the reading. Would you therefore read this amendment? Then we would know where we are.

Pedagogically, this would be acceptable, this would enable the interpreters to follow and then I would get the message.

[English]

The Chairman: Maybe we should get a copy for the interpreters as well.

Joe Volpe.

Mr. Volpe: Mr. Chairman, I must compliment you. You have proven yet again that a teacher is much more flexible than a politician, and that teachers can make mountains into molehills as opposed to the other way around. My compliments.

If we can go back to the amendment, Dr. Hill -

[Translation]

It's the same package.

Mr. Dubé: It's the same thing.

Mr. Volpe: I am unilingual as well and I see things as they are.

Mr. Dubé: These are the same.

Mr. Volpe: They're always the same.

[English]

The Chairman: Recess is over. Let's be clear again where we are. We're on clause 9. Mr. Hill has moved an amendment, which you will find in the slim document called R-1.5. It is the first of those amendments, on the first page. There is Mr. Hill's amendment in both languages.

In a minute I am going to call the question on that particular amendment. I want it understood that what Mr. Volpe was doing was alerting you to an amendment, but it's not on the floor yet until we deal with this one.

Grant, did you want to say something?

Mr. Hill: Yes. I've just had a conversation, and if I change the word ``and'' to ``or'' so that it reads ``is prohibited by law, or that contain a prescribed health message, unless that retailer is'', it makes it not necessary but possible to have that health warning on the sign. I suggest that this slight change be made to this amendment.

Mr. Szabo: Good idea, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Monsieur Dubé.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: We do not very often agree with the Reformers, but this time, I must agree with them, because this pertains to the objectives of the bill, which is ultimately intended to inform people about health problems.

.1420

[English]

The Chairman: The amendment, then, would be that in the English version the ``and'' in the quoted section is changed to ``or'', so that it reads ``or that contain''.

Is that correct, Mr. Hill?

Mr. Hill: Yes.

The Chairman: Then I'm advised that in the French version, in the quoted section «endroits prévus par règlement», you insert the word «ou» avant....

Well, we shouldn't try to be draftspeople here in committee, but I wanted to alert the francophones to the essence of what's happening here.

That's the amendment. Let's accept the change to it informally.

Shall the amendment carry?

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Clause 9 as amended agreed to

The Chairman: Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Szabo: With respect, Mr. Chairman, I understand Mr. Dubé's concern. This is just a suggestion, but when a clause comes up it does take a little time, at least to turn pages. With due respect, I think you called a couple of clauses very quickly.

Since the Reform, the Bloc and the government all know what their amendments are when they're coming up, I wonder if perhaps before you move on to a clause you could just catch eye contact with each of the three representatives to be sure they give you clearance that there are no amendments. It's just a suggestion.

The Chairman: Mr. Szabo, I had the most beautiful plan until Mr. Volpe showed up. The clerk had taken the time to indicate to me where amendments were coming up. I was moving quickly on certain clauses because I knew there were no amendments. I don't any longer know that, because I don't know where all of Mr. Volpe's amendments are. I'm going to ask the staff here to update me on this, to insert the additional ones from Mr. Volpe.

So I'm trying to do the two, keeping you informed but moving the thing along.

On clause 10 - Number of cigarettes in package

The Chairman: Mr. Bachand.

[Translation]

Mr. Bachand: Mr. Chairman, I have problems with the translation of clause 10(1), and I will read it:

10.(1) No person shall sell cigarettes except in a package that contains fewer than 20 cigarettes or fewer than a prescribed number of cigarettes, which number shall be more than 20.

What does that mean? I wonder whether someone could translate it into Spanish. Perhaps I would understand it a bit better.

[English]

I don't understand the French version of clause 10. Maybe I should ask the officials to explain.

Mr. Hill: You won't be able to understand the English version either. It's ``un-understandable''.

The Chairman: Could I ask department officials to respond to Mr. Bachand?

[Translation]

Ms France Pégeot (Acting Director, Office of Tobacco Control, Department of Health): I know that a suggested change has been prepared, but the word ``prescribed'' deals with the number and the expression in the French version between the two dashes pertains to the ``number''. In other words, we are talking about a prescribed number which shall be more than 20. The number as such will be stipulated in the regulation, except that the regulation will stipulate ``a maximum of 20''. However, I know that we will be presenting an amendment to clarify this provision. This is what we would like to see.

[English]

Mr. Volpe: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, as members we see we have a government amendment to clause 10 to clear that up. If you'll refer to the section 1.5, you'll see that the amendment is proposed in English and in French.

[Translation]

In English, in lines 22 to 26:

...except in a package that contains fewer than 20 cigarettes or fewer than a prescribed number of cigarettes, which number shall be more than 20.

[English]

The English version replaces lines 24 to 25 in clause 10, page 4, with:

in a package that contains at least twenty cigarettes or at least a prescribed number

.1425

I believe this amendment would clear up the language in the French as well as the English and I think it would capture the intent of the amendments proposed by both other parties.

The Chairman: Claude.

[Translation]

Mr. Bachand: You said this in French, Mr. Volpe. If I've understood you correctly, there may be packages containing more than 20 cigarettes, but since this will be the prescribed number, this will be accepted as such as well. This will be 20 or more, if the regulation is applied.

Is that right?

[English]

Mr. Martin: Actually, with all due respect to my colleague, if he were to leave out the last part, after ``cigarettes'', it would express the intent of the bill. But leaving ``at least a prescribed number'' opens the door to kiddie packs, because kiddie packs contain fewer. That sentence does not preclude under twenty cigarettes.

Mr. Volpe: The intent of the legislation is to capture what has already taken place in prior legislation and what has already been outlined in the blueprint document, and that is to do away with kiddie packs.

Mr. Martin: But does putting in ``or at least a prescribed number'' not open the door,Mr. Volpe, to having cigarettes under that amount?

Ms Pégeot: No, it says the number shall be more than twenty. So we set a minimum, which is twenty or higher, as prescribed by regulation. In the Tobacco Sales to Young Persons Act the kiddie pack was twenty, in line 26.

The Chairman: Claude.

[Translation]

Mr. Bachand: I think that there is a problem in English, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps we should add that, at all times, there should be no fewer than 20 cigarettes in a package.

In English, I think that you probably would have to add

[English]

or at least a prescribed number, but never less than twenty cigarettes.

[Translation]

That could be much clearer in English.

[English]

You're right.

Mr. Martin: In the statement you have here, if you're considering it ``or'', you can have the sense that this statement does not preclude a package of under twenty cigarettes. It says you have to have twenty cigarettes or you can have at least the prescribed number. So as I read it, if you had a package that prescribed that there were ten cigarettes in the package, this regulation would allow that package if it were prescribed as being ten cigarettes.

Ms Pégeot: The amendment proposes changes to lines 24 and 25. Lines 26 and 27 remain. That, I understand, takes care of your concern.

The Chairman: It takes care of it how, by passing the amendment or defeating the amendment?

Mr. Szabo: Let's have Mr. Volpe's amendment.

The Chairman: The amendment is to clause 10 and in Mr. Volpe's name.

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Clause 10 as amended agreed to

Clause 11 agreed to

On clause 12 - Dispensing device

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: We have an amendment pertaining to clause 12.

I move that clause 12 be amended by replacing lines 40 and 41 on page 4 with the following:

furnishing of a tobacco product by means of an automatic device that dispenses tobacco products except

We are adding the word ``automatic'' which, in our mind, is very important.

.1430

[English]

The Chairman: Now I can say to Mr. Dubé ``Physician, heal thyself.'' I ask members, including Mr. Dubé, when you're about to refer to an amendment, please help the committee by indicating what document it is in.

The one he is referring to right now is the BQ-1.5 document on page 1.

[Translation]

Are you finished?

Mr. Dubé: I wanted to add the word ``automatic'' because this will enable remote control. Finally, this limits access. An employee must be present in order to be able to use this machine. This is in keeping with the objective of the Act which is to limit the access of young people to tobacco products. I feel that it is very important to add the word ``automatic''.

[English]

The Chairman: Is there discussion?

Mr. Hill: Just so I can be sure, we had a representation here from individuals, particularly from Quebec, on the issue of the machines that were remote. Is it your intention to try to cover those machines so they will still be allowed?

Mr. Dubé: Oui.

Mr. Hill: I did hear from the officials that they thought this might be a reasonable proposition.

Ms Ferguson: I think what we want to ensure is the transaction is supervised to some extent and there is no loss of control over the restrictions on access.

Mr. Hill: Indeed, would this amendment look after those concerns?

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: Mr. Chairman, I am looking for the answer.

[English]

The Chairman: I have another intervener before you.

Mr. Volpe: I think in ``by a device that dispenses'', the word ``device'' already captures the concept of a remote or an automatic....

The amendment as proposed, while it attempts to exactly identify a specific product, doesn't itself capture the innovations coming forward. I think the language already in the clause captures in its generality all types of devices that are not hand-by-hand delivery. In other words, anything that is automatic is captured by the word ``automatic''.

If this is the case, the amendment as proposed, as I say, is unnecessary.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: We heard many witnesses quickly. These witnesses told us that, with an automatic device, it would be possible to control access to these machines which, ultimately, are...

Let's take the case of a small bar with only one employee. In order for someone to be able to use such a device, an employee has to do something. Otherwise, the dispenser - because this is still allowed - would be placed in an area that is accessible only to employees. The witnesses gave several examples of situations where the employee had to move in order to serve customers. This employee does not have eyes in the back of his head, so that people could in fact go behind the counter or into the corner and help themselves to cigarettes. The provision with respect to the automatic dispenser adds greater security than the one that simply refers to a device that dispenses.

I would remind you of something else. Two years ago, when we debated the previous law, some representations were made and the department had said, in writing, that this was a very good measure and had allowed these people to do this.

We are nearly formalizing what had already been agreed to by the department.

.1435

Ms Pégeot: Indeed, the former law had allowed for the use of different types of locks on the dispensing machines. Bill C-71 no longer allows this type of mechanism.

Mr. Dubé: I'm not talking about locks, I'm talking about remote devices.

Ms Pégeot: I called them locks; I apologize, that's what I meant to say.

Mr. Dubé: What prompted the department to change its mind? Two years ago, the department had thought that this was an innovative idea.

Ms Pégeot: The current Act does not allow this type of device. We notice that these devices were often never turned off. Accordingly, transactions were not made face to face. Some American studies show that such a device is not really an effective measure to prevent young people from having access to the products.

Mr. Dubé: You are therefore relying on what is happening in the United States rather than on what has been happening here over the past two years.

[English]

The Chairman: Grant Hill.

Mr. Hill: This has been a fairly recent change for these individuals with the machines. They talked here about how, since 1994...until now they have had significant costs to change the machines to make them comply. If the law is going to be changed at this stage of the game, it would seem to me quite reasonable that we should be compensating these individuals for the relatively recent cost engendered.

I don't think this is the way we should move at all. If these machines were legitimate two years ago and have gone through the change, I think you need to give us a strong reason for shutting down remote machines. The suggestion was made that we could modify the bill to still allow them. This would make eminent sense to me.

I saw no evidence of advertising with these machines. They talked about the access being reasonable because there was someone in control of the machine. It was not available to kids.

This is surely what we're trying to do. We're not trying to shut down people who have a legitimate business. Please tell me why we should shut them down.

The Chairman: Joe Volpe.

Mr. Volpe: With respect, I don't think this is the intent of this clause. I recall the conversation where we said what we would do is make sure those who had made this investment and who had made every effort to comply with the legislation would be safeguarded. If what colleagues across the table are saying is there is doubt in their own minds that the regulations will capture the intent and not cause undue distress, then I think what we can do is propose an amendment capturing exactly what you're saying.

I would prefer, with respect to my colleague Mr. Dubé, that we be very specific. What we would do is look at the proscribed devices. If this is what my colleagues would feel comfortable with, then if they would give me a few minutes I'm sure we can come up with the appropriate language in both official languages for their consideration.

I caution again that, in my view, the clause already covers their concerns. If you want to be more specific, I think we can do this.

The Chairman: I'm going to stand clause 12 for the moment and you can look at some wording.

Mr. Volpe: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: I could ask Mr. Volpe to think about it. I'm not asking him to answer right away, but he could perhaps add ``aim at better control'' or something to that effect. This is not to make cigarettes more accessible to young people; this is to do exactly the opposite.

[English]

Clause 12 allowed to stand

On clause 13 - Deliver or mail

The Chairman: Shall clause 13 carry? I want to get everybody's attention now. We're on clause 13.

.1440

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: I have a question. The bill states:

13.(1) No person shall, for consideration, cause a tobacco product to be delivered from one province to another or to be sent by mail unless the person is exempted by the regulations.

We are going quickly, but people were wondering whether or not they could have a tobacco product delivered to them if there was no consideration.

I would like the officials to provide us with an explanation because I recall that the witnesses said: Yes, but can we deliver tobacco products if it's free?

[English]

Mr. Volpe: We have an amendment, G-3 - you can see it in your large document - that I think would clarify that. The amendment, as colleagues read it, I think, will allow for some of the realities that happen in the marketplace, and sometimes it will involve manufacturers having to ship directly to retailers. This amendment will capture any exceptions to the general principles outlined in clause 13. In the English, the corrections take place in lines 1 to 5 on page 5 of the bill.

I think you'll find, Mr. Dubé, that if you compare on the French side the major package with the thinner one, the government 1.5, the French is cleaned up in the thinner document.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: I know that the people from the cigarette manufacturing sector were wondering whether this would limit delivery through the mail or if this would be possible using other means of transportation. Otherwise, the companies are going to have to manufacture their cigarettes only in the province where they operate. They will not be able to deliver their goods elsewhere.

They felt that this imposed a restriction.

[English]

Mr. Volpe: The amendment there isn't exclusive. It gives you an indication of what it might be, but it's not as proscriptive and restricting as you might fear. What it does is make an attempt to recognize the commercial relations and how they are effected. It may be, as you say, by mail, by post, or by a delivery system, recognizing that the delivery system is not restricted only to mail. But that's what the amendment tries to do.

Mr. Martin: Mr. Volpe, doesn't the current wording in the legislation cover those who are manufacturers or retailers? Therefore is it not redundant to put ``between manufacturers or retailers''?

Mr. Volpe: May I answer there, Mr. Chairman?

I think what we've done in our prior amendment is try to identify or distinguish between person and try to clarify that this person is engaged in the sale and distribution of cigarettes. All that amendment does is focus really on the retailer and the distributor.

.1445

In this case, since we're talking about a manufacturer engaged in a commercial venture, it identifies purely those people who are involved in the sale and distribution, or the production, sale and distribution of the product.

The Chairman: Before you go on, Joe Volpe, some of the confusion right here and now may relate to the fact that you have on the table two different versions of this amendment. The amendment is the same in English in both versions, but it's different in French.

Mr. Volpe: I've clarified that.

The Chairman: He has that, has he?

Mr. Volpe: Yes, I clarified that when I started speaking.

The Chairman: Okay, so are you clear, Mr. Dubé, on which amendment we're dealing with here? Which one is it, from the chair?

Mr. Volpe: It's the 1.5 in French and the main one in the English.

The Chairman: All right.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: G-3, lines 1 to 5.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Dubé has the floor first.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: I would simply like to express my opposition. The expression ``unless the person is exempted by the regulations'' annoys me. I would prefer that the Act specify as many things as possible. The way it is drafted now, almost everything is left up to the department.

[English]

Mr. Volpe: I appreciate the concern, Mr. Dubé, but I think we've already had a discussion on that kind of topic earlier on. The department officials gave Mr. Martin and you an indication of where the intent of the regulations is headed and what is the scope of the regulations. I think while one can speculate that it will go from point A to Z, they're actually focused on this area.

I don't think you need to be overly concerned that the number of exceptions will be so large as to render this a nullity. I think you've already seen where the legislation is going and where the proscriptions and the regulations are going. It's very specific for us, at least as I see it, but as I read both I don't see your concern expressed. I don't see your concern, even in the French.

The Chairman: Paul Szabo, and then Claude Bachand.

Mr. Szabo: Mr. Chairman, for clarification, while I understand that under clause 3 the act applies to Canada and/or a province, the issue here has to do with interprovincial jurisdictions and, I guess, trade or transport. I simply would like to ask for clarification as to how this relates to the territories and whether or not there is transportation, or is it assumed that the word ``province'' includes the territories?

Ms Ferguson: It does.

Mr. Szabo: That's absolutely clear?

Ms Ferguson: The Interpretation Act provides that ``province'' includes territory.

Mr. Szabo: Thank you.

The Chairman: Claude Bachand.

[Translation]

Mr. Bachand: I have a question for Mr. Volpe. I would like to know the intent behind the amendment. If we do not amend clause 13, are you saying that, for example, manufacturers and retailers will not be allowed to deliver their products by mail? Do you want everything to be done properly between the manufacturers and the retailers?

If this is not contained in clause 13, could the provision prevent this from happening?

Mr. Volpe: Notwithstanding the way that you have presented it in French, the situation is quite clear.

[English]

While it's clear in my own mind, if I understand the way you put it in French, what I'd like to do is to call on Mr. McNaught to give you an even better legal clarification on what I just said.

Mr. McNaught.

Mr. McNaught: Thank you.

Essentially, we're covering mail, which is a federal prerogative to do so, nationally, and also delivery, interprovincially, but the delivery within the province is not our concern and we won't be touching that.

Mr. Bachand: The question is more that if clause 13 is maintained as it is in the bill right now, you pretend that it would.... You wouldn't be able to deliver or mail between manufacturers and retailers, so you want to prevent that. That's why you're introducing this amendment, I suppose. You want to be very clear that they could do it for delivery or mailing between manufacturers and retailers. That wasn't in the bill. That's what you want your amendment to do.

.1450

Ms Ferguson: If there were not an exemption, the industry is concerned that they would not be able, in the course of their business, to deliver their product when the act is proclaimed. It was intended to exempt the manufacturers through regulation. This simply deals with the exemption in legislation.

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Clause 13 as amended agreed to

On clause 14 - Regulations

Mr. Volpe: I have an amendment to this in the thin document, G-1.5. There are essentially two things with this amendment,

[Translation]

in English or in French.

[English]

To maintain the continuity of the previous amendment, there is an insertion under paragraph 14(e) in line 21. In English it would read:

(e) respecting exemptions from the application of section 12;

[Translation]

and in French:

e) régir les exemptions de l'application de l'article 12;

[English]

The second item in clause 14 is that you would then have to renumber (e) and (f), and that's what the amendment does. You'll see it underlined and renumbered (f) and (g).

The Chairman: If it's just an amendment that tidies up, tell us.

Amendment agreed to

Clause 14 as amended agreed to

On clause 15 - Information required on packages

Mr. Martin: I have an amendment to clause 15.

The Chairman: Hold on. Please refer us to the document.

Mr. Martin: We'll go to the master document. It is amendment R-3 to clause 15. We'd like to replace lines 28 to 32 with the following:

manner, the messages required by the regulations.

Also in clause 15 we would replace lines 37 to 40 on page 5 with the following:

regulations.

That is right after R-3. They go back to back. There are two amendments on clause 15, R-3 and R-4 in the master document.

The Chairman: Keith, procedurally, let's deal with the first one first. When we dispose of it, we'll have you on the second one.

Mr. Martin: I'll do the rationale once because it applies to both of them. We'd like to replace this because the wording as it is would limit the interpretation of the messages placed on cigarette packages by the government and would refer only to health hazards or product emissions. By changing the wording as I've suggested, the information that's there can enable the government to provide other messages, including quitting tips, toll-free lines and information on nicotine patches or gum.

It also enables the government to provide messages targeted at youth on such matters as how it affects their breath, their looks and their fingers. It's important because in cigarette cessation with youth, you have to address their vanity, not their sense of mortality. That's the purpose of putting this forward.

.1455

The Chairman: The question is on the first of the amendments to clause 15, styled R-3.

Mr. Dubé.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: We will be voting against the Reform Party's amendment because, once again, although their objectives may be appropriate, too much room is given to regulations. It is too imprecise. There are too many grey zones.

[English]

Amendment negatived

The Chairman: Mr. Martin moves R-4. I think he said the rationale was already given.

Mr. Martin: The rationale is much the same, but I wanted to address Mr. Dubé's comment. I fail to see what the objection is to trying to broaden the scope and the ability of the government to put other types of messages on the cigarette packages. Why make those restrictions?

The Chairman: Are you ready for the question? The question is on the amendment to clause 15 styled R-4.

Amendment negatived

Clauses 15 and 16 agreed to

On clause 17 - Regulations

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: I think that clause 17 gives too many powers to the Minister. I will therefore be voting against this clause. This is a matter of principle. This puts these powers beyond the reach of the Act.

[English]

The Chairman: Keith Martin.

Mr. Martin: The amendment there, Mr. Chairman, goes back to the rationale before. The purpose is to give the government the power and the ability to put other messages on there to regulate and to warn the public about the wide problems cigarette smoking has. Why restrict it to the current methods? A lot of new methods can come out, and messages can come out which will prove to be effective in regulating tobacco consumption, particularly in youth.

The Chairman: Harb Dhaliwal.

Mr. Dhaliwal: Can I have a clarification from the staff of what the effect of this amendment would be?

Ms Ferguson: About the messages, the intent here is to provide for factual information, as opposed to the other kinds of messages you've mentioned. The Supreme Court upheld this particular provision. We feel the kind of messages you have spoken about, while valid, are probably better placed in public education programming and that sort of thing than in the bill.

The Chairman: Mr. Dubé.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: I have a question for the mover. What does he mean exactly? What does he have in mind?

[English]

Mr. Martin: The purpose of putting this forward, Mr. Dubé, again is to provide the government with the power to be able to put on certain other messages, as Ms Ferguson has just alluded to. But she said they wouldn't be able to put them on because of the Supreme Court decision.

Mr. Chairman, if I may, along the lines of Mr. Dubé, I would like to ask Ms Ferguson a question.

The Chairman: Sure.

.1500

Mr. Martin: Ms Ferguson, what I'm trying to get at is allowing the government to have the power to put messages along the lines of what I said, particularly about kids and how smoking will affect them, not only that they'll get cancer or the effects during pregnancy but also that it affects their skin, their breath and such. Does the Supreme Court decision as it stands prevent us from doing that?

Ms Ferguson: With factual health hazard information, I believe that would be possible, but my understanding is that if we were to put in ``quit attempt'' numbers, such as a 1-800 number, that essentially would be entreating the consumer not to use the product. That would be problematic.

The wording in the Supreme Court talks about health warnings on the packages. As I said, if the actual message deals with a health hazard and it's factual, then I suspect it's something we could allow.

Mr. Martin: That's the reason I'm putting it forward, to allow other messages to get out there, to say, don't smoke cigarettes because it can also affect you in the following ways.

[Translation]

The Chairman: [Inaudible]

Mr. Bachand: Mr. Martin, I fully comprehend your objective. The problem you seem to be having is that once you have given this responsibility to the Governor in Council, you have no guarantee that he will fulfil it. If you wish to amend the bill, we must build in some protection which will prevent the government from tinkering with the bill and leaving it up to the courts to interpret it. When the bill stipulates that the Governor in Council may make regulations, all of your good intentions are being turned over to the government, which is being told to try to do this. This is why the Bloc Québécois is opposed to this.

When reference is made to the Governor in Council, we are talking about the Cabinet. Should the Cabinet decide to turn down the recommendations that you have put forward, they will not be adopted and they will not be part of the regulations. We would much rather have our amendments stipulated clearly in the Act rather than leave it up to the Governor in Council. The government must abide by the law. If he decided that it would not comply with the law, people could of course institute legal proceedings against the government. But with your good intentions, I think that by leaving the matter up to the Governor in Council, you will be giving too much power to the government, because the Governor in Council will not be obliged to follow your recommendations.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay. Paul Szabo, Andy Scott and Keith Martin, in that order.

Mr. Szabo: Mr. Chairman, the amendment we're considering from the Reform party now replaces the word ``information'' with the words ``messages and images''. Because we're dealing with a piece of law, I would ask the staff whether ``information'' is inclusive of messages and images.

It is. Does ``information'' include more things than ``messages and images''?

Ms Louise Maguire-Wellington (Legal Counsel, Department of Health): Well, it has to be related to health. That's what it's provided for.

Mr. Szabo: So in your opinion, deleting the word ``information'' would not frustrate the intent of Mr. Martin's proposal.

Ms Maguire-Wellington: No, I wouldn't think so.

Mr. Szabo: In fact, it would be more inclusive.

On that basis, Mr. Chairman, I think I understand better the issue here.

The Chairman: Andy Scott.

Mr. Scott: On the question that's been brought forward with regard to regulations, I think we've been told repeatedly that what we have to be on guard against is the tobacco industry finding holes in this. If we have to come back to Parliament to deal with every hole in this exercise that the tobacco companies don't have to come to Parliament to find, then we're always going to be well behind them.

Consequently, we have to give cabinet the opportunity to deal with these in regulation, as we see fit. Things are going to happen along the way, and surely it's no one's intention that the way we're going to keep up with the tobacco companies' quick action on this is to come back to Parliament every time they find a hole.

The Chairman: Keith Martin, please.

Mr. Martin: Precisely. I understand the concerns of my friends from the Bloc Québécois. That's why, as Mr. Scott just mentioned, I would like to give the Governor in Council the ability to be able to do the things we've mentioned here, because we're excluding a wide range of tools and possibilities in terms of messages we want to send to smokers, particularly youth. I fear that by making the restrictions that are in the bill right now, we're precluding the ability of Governor in Council to make those decisions to put those messages out. That's why I'm moving this amendment.

.1505

Amendment negatived

Clause 17 agreed to on division

On clause 18 - Definition of ``promotion''

The Chairman: First of all, let me welcome my good friend Paul Crête of Kamouraska - Rivière-du-Loup to the committee.

We have some amendments here. First I'll hear Mr. Volpe, then I'll hear Antoine Dubé.

Mr. Volpe: I have a couple of amendments here and they're both in the realm of housekeeping and tightening up the bill, so let me go through them very quickly. If you'll refer to the thinner pages, the G-1.5 pages, clause 18, page 6, line 39, this one, for my colleagues opposite, is in the English version only.

It changes the last line, line 39, to balance off the sentence in English so it makes as much sense in English as it does in French. It's an amendment for the English section only, so after ``depiction'' it says ``in the work, production or performance''.

The Chairman: Okay, that seems straightforward.

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Do I have other amendments, Mr. Volpe?

Mr. Volpe: It's on clause 18, page 7 - in the same document - for lines 4 to 7 again, in the English only. Again, it's to provide the same kind of balance in the English as is provided in the French. On lines 4 to 7, it's to insert the items indicated and to change ``an'' to an ``a'', so you have the appropriate grammar.

The Chairman: Joe, may I suggest that unless we intend to sit here forever, we'll have to take some things on faith and maybe perhaps a bit fate too, but that's another issue. If it's strictly a matter of cleaning up the language with no policy implications, maybe someone should flag that for us in a word and get on with it. Joe, as eloquent as you are, once I hear you say this is only technical, I turn you off anyway.

If there is a substantive change, we have these people at the end of the table to flag that for us, but if it's a straight matter of language, I'm sure nobody around the table would object to your telling us that and we can put the question.

So I'm going to put the question on the amendment Joe Volpe was moving to clause 18.

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Mr. Dubé.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: I would like to move an amendment to clause 18.

[English]

The Chairman: Is it the amendment that's in front of us here?

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: This is amendment BQ-2.

[English]

The Chairman: I'm told that amendment is out of order, but I'm going to ask one of the legislative clerks to explain to you why the amendment is out of order.

.1510

Mr. Charles Bellemare (Procedural Clerk): Mr. Chairman, it is not out of order in itself, but it touches lines that have already been amended by the amendments proposed by Mr. Volpe and adopted. Unless there is unanimous consent, the committee can't go back and amend those lines again.

The Chairman: Okay.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: I would however like to point out that if the text is not amended, it could be interpreted as meaning that an individual who works in promotion would no longer be able to do this type of work in the strict meaning of the word. Sometimes we must protect freedoms. I am all in favour of limiting young people's access to tobacco, however it's another thing to tell somebody that he can no longer express his professional point of view or opinion. I would anticipate that this provision will be dismissed by the Supreme Court.

Could someone explain to us why our amendment cannot be given consideration? According to the explanation provided by the assistant, I understood that it was in fact in order, but that it could not be given consideration because we had previously adopted another amendment. The very objective of the amendment that we are proposing concerns an entire paragraph of the bill and is different from the amendment that we moved at the beginning. The fact that we are moving our amendment does not contradict the vote taken previously because it represents, to some extent, a new position that the committee would adopt with respect to clause 18(2)(b), which, when you get right down to it, has just created exceptions with respect to promotions. The exceptions include:

b) a report, commentary or opinion in respect of a tobacco product or a brand of a tobacco product if no consideration is given directly or indirectly for the reference to the tobacco product or brand in that report, commentary or opinion by a manufacturer or retailer;

I don't think we have just contradicted the amendment that was already adopted. We must give further consideration to this; we must ask ourselves whether it would be appropriate to repeal or keep this clause. In my opinion, the clerk must rule on this matter. In the first part of his answer, he said that the amendment as such was not out or order, but that we could not consider it because of previous choices that were made. If this amendment is not out of order, it must, in my opinion, be in order.

Mr. Bellemare: Mr. Chairman, it is true that we are dealing with a technical problem. If the committee were to give its consent, we could move this amendment.

Mr. Crête (Kamouraska - Rivière-du-Loup): Mr. Chairman, what the clerk just told us is important. The committee's objective is to adopt the best piece of legislation possible and, at the end of the day, to obtain the best possible results. As my colleague mentioned, it would not be very good if we were to wind up with invalid sections in the Act. People could say that we really didn't do our job.

The objective sought currently by the Official Opposition with respect to this bill is not to contradict or quash the amendment that was already adopted, but rather to clarify an issue respecting all of the choices or directions given to us by the Supreme Court. It is therefore important that the committee gage the relevance of the amendment and make an informed decision. We must think about all of the possible legal interpretations that may be made later on. It is said that the legislator never talks for nothing. If, as a legislator, he decides not to study the amendment, the Supreme Court will have all the more reason to say that these provisions were purposely specified in the legislation and that, as a result, a decision has been made with respect to the constitutionality of this aspect. We must deal with this problem. I therefore feel that the committee should consider the amendment.

[English]

Mr. Volpe: I think this might be one of those amendments where, even though we've been advised it is technically out of order, it would probably stand a member in good stead to continue to lobby that particular position in a place outside the committee. If we are compelled to vote on this item right now, he won't be able to bring it up in clause-by-clause when we go into the House. If he believes in the validity of that position, I think that might be an appropriate forum for him to present that amendment. But if we vote on it now, I caution the member that he won't be able to raise it in the House.

.1515

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: Mr. Chairman, it is important that we strive to draft the best possible law as early as possible. We must never presume to know what opinions will be expressed during the later stages. The bill may not be studied at report stage until February or March. All kinds of things can happen. This is why I feel it is important to resolve these questions as we go along. We are not dealing with what-if situations or science fiction. We are making policy to apply to concrete things. And, contrary to what my colleague said, I would like to state that the clerk did not say that he...

Mr. Chairman, I think that I am entitled to continue intervening in accordance with the rules of the committee.

[English]

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Szabo): Mr. Crête, the clerk has given us guidance that unanimous consent is required for your amendment to be considered at this point. I would think at this point, unless the members do not understand what the issues you've articulated are, we should ask the committee whether there is unanimous consent to consider the BQ motion.

Is there unanimous consent?

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Szabo): No, I do not have it.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: Mr. Chairman, I had asked for the floor. Before you had finished speaking, I had raised my hand to respond to the question. I had understood that my colleague had agreed to consider the amendment. He said: ``Although the clerk said that this was not in order...''. However, the clerk had told us that it was in order.

[English]

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Szabo): I understand, and I will accept the advice given to the committee by the clerk of the committee on the admissibility of the amendment and that for it to be put forward unanimous consent is required. I called for unanimous consent. There was not unanimous consent. Therefore, on the advice given by the clerk, that amendment will not be dealt with.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: Mr. Chairman, I would still like...

[English]

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Szabo): On the same item or on a different item?

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: On a point of clarification. The committee has decided not to give its unanimous consent which would enable us to consider our amendment. However, the members who decided not to support unanimous consent must accept the fact that, should the Supreme Court rule that this was against the Constitution, they shall have to bear the responsibility.

[English]

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Szabo): With respect, I believe the item has been dealt with. I think, though, if it is not dealt with in committee, it can be dealt with at report stage. So it's not that there's no.... Simply on the advice and the guidelines provided to the committee by the clerk, we are not going to be able to deal with that, because there is not unanimous consent of the committee.

Is this on a new item? I don't think there's much point in debating it any further.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: No. Mr. Chairman, if you want to play the Standing Orders game, well we will find some standing orders for you. It is said that, in a committee, one can discuss things. Things do not occur here as they do in the House; here we can talk as long as we want to. You cannot cut us short, because according to section 116 of the Standing Orders, you cannot limit the number of interventions that the member wishes to make...

[English]

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Szabo): No.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: ... nor their duration. So you can't try to get things through by the back door. We have been here for three years now and we are starting to get used to the way that committees work. This being said, I would like to ask the clerk a question.

[English]

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Szabo): No, I understand your point very well, and I thank you for making that intervention. I don't think there's any intent to frustrate, but we do have to seek guidance from the clerk of the committee. I think the member for Eglinton - Lawrence has added some wisdom to it, that this is something that should be pursued with all parties because it could be an important issue, and it's something we are not going to be able to deal with.

.1520

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: This is what the member has told me, but I would like to be reassured about this. In this case, would it be proper for us to withdraw our amendment? Given that we have already presented it, you may refuse to give it any consideration at report stage.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Szabo): And it was not in order.

Mr. Bellemare: Mr. Chairman, since it was technically out of order, it couldn't be presented. Gentlemen, you are entirely free to present it at report stage.

Mr. Dubé: Thank you.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Szabo): Mr. Crête.

Mr. Crête: Following the same logic, and to be sure that we have understood correctly, we will not be presented with the same argument at report stage. We will not be told that, since there had been a previous amendment at an earlier stage, it will not be in order at report stage.

You have confirmed that this amendment, which is not in order in a committee here, will in fact be in order at report stage. This is what you are confirming to us.

[English]

The Chairman: I'll ask Mr. Bellemare to comment on that.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellemare: Mr. Chairman, it must be said that the same rules of precedence apply to report stage, except that in that particular case, the chairman divides the motions into groups that are debated together.

This will certainly be a debatable motion, but it may happen that because of a previous amendment dealing with a few lines of this amendment, we will not be able to vote on it.

Mr. Crête: Mr. Chairman, this then means that the same amendment will no longer be in order at report stage. We want to have a provision that deals directly with what the Supreme Court decided a year ago and we are going to have knowingly decided, as a committee, to shut our eyes and to disregard the situation.

In my opinion, it is important that the committee reconsider its decision because we will be faced with results which could quite easily lead to an invalidation of part of the bill. We are all capable of seeing this just by reading the situation.

I therefore feel that the committee should reconsider its decision and decide whether or not it would be appropriate to reconsider the clause, because we are dealing with an important issue and the clerk has just confirmed that the amendment will no longer be in order at report stage, contrary to what he had said previously.

[English]

The Chairman: First of all, if you are going to quote people, including the staff, who don't have quite the same recourse that the politicians at the table do, you should quote them correctly. What Mr. Bellemare said was that there is a possibility. He was giving you, Mr. Crête, his assessment that there is a possibility. He didn't comment on either the surety or the probability.

Secondly, in fairness, Paul, I think you've had due process here. You make a powerful argument. I thought the chair, in the person of the member from Mississauga South, gave you adequate time and latitude to make your point. He then put the question to the committee as to whether there was unanimous consent, and there was not unanimous consent. I believe you've had a fair hearing, but I believe we should move on. Frankly, I don't think there's any other recourse.

Mr. Crête: Monsieur le président....

The Chairman: I'll hear you, but I won't hear for the sixth time the same argument. I give you notice.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: No, I do not believe that I repeated the same thing. Moreover, I know that the Standing Orders entitle me to speak until I believe that I have convinced the members of the committee. I want us to come to an understanding about this for future debates.

You mentioned that the Chair had given me enough time. It is not up to the chair to judge whether or not I had enough time. It is up to me, as a member, to take the time I feel is necessary in this committee to present my arguments. I do not want there to be a precedent that would restrict us and that would provide the chairman of this committee with that latitude.

.1525

I'm waiting for your opinion.

[English]

The Chairman: Give it to me again.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: At the beginning, you mentioned that the chairman had given me enough time.

I just want to be sure that this is not a precedent, because the Standing Orders clearly state that members may speak for as long as they feel is necessary to present their point of view and to convince members on the other side of the table. I do not want this to be a precedent that would allow the chair to decide whether or not we have had enough time.

From what I understand from the Standing Orders, it is not the chair who decides. The chair oversees debates and gives the floor to members.

[English]

The Chairman: That's so academic and so elementary. It goes without saying that the chairman is aware that in committee you have unlimited time. I never at any time...and that's why I appeal to you again, as I did a moment ago when you were misquoting Mr. Bellemare. Don't misquote the chair either. I didn't say that at all. I never said you couldn't speak. I gave you a warning that if you kept saying the same thing again, I'd talk to you about unnecessary repetition. I have the right as a chair to do that.

More to the point, we can either behave like a couple of three-year-olds here or we can decide why we're here. It seems to me we're here to deal with this legislation. Frankly, I - and I suggest you do too, Paul - have other things to do with my time. Sure, if you want to talk ad nauseam, that's your right. I'm not sure you'll enjoy it very much, but if that's what you want to do.... On the other hand, you may want to treat us as reasonable and mature colleagues who were polled a minute ago and indicated that the committee doesn't wish to give unanimous consent. If you believe you can change that by further persuasion, be my guest.

Paul Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that you have acknowledged that my interpretation was correct. I just want to tell you that I do not feel that I'm acting like a three-year old child when I ask that this committee's rules of procedure be applied.

[English]

The Chairman: Now, Mr. Crête, in fairness, this one got off track early when you were obviously less than fully aware of another rule, the one cited to you by Mr. Bellemare. Had you been expeditious and put down your amendment before Mr. Volpe, we wouldn't be in this conundrum at this particular time. We can sit here all afternoon and trade barbs on that, but I'm not sure we'll solve the problem.

I ask the committee again if there is unanimous consent to entertain Mr. Crête's amendment. If not, I suggest we proceed. Is there unanimous consent?

An hon. member: No.

The Chairman: No, there is not. I suggest we move on.

Mr. Szabo: Question on the clause as amended.

The Chairman: Antoine Dubé.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: We added something to amendment BQ-3. We added a new line, (d). I simply wanted to tell the committee that we would like to withdraw that amendment.

[English]

The Chairman: We're on clause 18 as amended. Shall the amended clause carry?

Clause 18 as amended agreed to

The Chairman: The committee stands recessed until 4 p.m. We'll reconvene in room 200, West Block.

.1529

.1608

The Chairman: Order, please. We're going to resume clause-by-clause. First of all, let me welcome our good friend Francine Lalonde, députée de Mercier, to the committee.

For the benefit of Ms Lalonde and also one of the others who may not have been here just before we recessed briefly, let me do my dog-and-pony show one more time.

You should have with you five documents that relate to the exercise at hand: the bill itself, C-71; what we'll refer to, for brevity, as ``G-1''....

Do you have that one, Francine?

Mrs. Lalonde (Mercier): Yes, I have it.

The Chairman: Then you have another document, G-1.5. It was a document circulated without notation, but you might want to write ``G-1.5'' on that one. There's another document called BQ-1.5, and there's a fourth document labelled R-1.5.

.1610

In a moment we'll return to the clause-by-clause procedure. Before we do, I would just say a word that might help you in terms of planning your lives during the next few hours. I have no idea, nor do any of you, I would suggest.... I'm going to wait for Mr. Dubé because this relates to a question he put to me.

I want to say something about timeframes to the degree that I can, to give you some guidance for planning your schedules. First of all, I have no idea how long this exercise is going to take. That's up to all of us, obviously.

Some of the committee, most of the government members, have commitments they'd like to keep in the early evening, but they're not - at least for me - a life-and-death commitment. I can, in the right circumstances, forgo the commitment, but I prefer to keep it.

So I would suggest, and someone has suggested to me, that we hold this over until tomorrow afternoon. From my own standpoint, I have two difficulties with that. One relates to my own personal schedule. But, again, in a pinch I could do some rearranging.

May I suggest we work on through until about 6 p.m., see how we're doing at that point, and then make a decision. At that time the options will be to sit through the evening, and night, if necessary; to resume at 9 a.m. tomorrow; or to resume at 3:30 p.m. Theoretically, these are the options. There are some problems with 3:30 p.m. tomorrow, particularly, and of course tomorrow morning we have caucuses. So let's see how we do, and at 6 p.m. review the situation. Is that fair?

On clause 19 - Prohibition

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: I have something to say about that. Section 19 reads as follows:

19. No person shall promote a tobacco product or a tobacco product-related brand element except as authorized by this Act or the Regulations.

What we know is what we've been talking about: the whole issue of sponsorships. All the testimonies and concerns that we have heard have been about section 19. We must be aware of this.

Mr. Chairman, another point which I think is excessive is that everything except what is permitted in the bill is prohibited. I think that is abusive. Usually, you have the right to do anything except what is prohibited in a bill. In this case, everything except what is permitted is prohibited. I think that is excessive. One rarely sees legislative provisions such as these.

I would just like to remind you, because some may think the opposite, that the Official Opposition supports the goals of this bill, that is to restrict young people's access to tobacco and to help reduce smoking. At the same time, the bill should not be so restrictive that in the end, the public thinks we are exaggerating. If a bill goes too far, then, on the one hand, it may be dismissed before the Supreme Court, and on the other hand, it may not be respected by the public.

.1615

We in the Bloc Québécois have always said that we absolutely need to invest in public education, that we need positive rather than coercive measures.

Obviously, putting positive measures in a bill is not always easy. However, in this case Mr. Chairman, we think it is absolutely abusive to state that any promotion that is not authorized by the bill is prohibited. After having read the bill several times, I saw that it is section 24 that allows for this famous 10 per cent, which we will come back to. Apart from that, it does not allow for much in terms of sponsorship. This threatens the survival of several cultural and sports events, especially the Montreal Grand Prix, the Grand Prix in Trois-Rivières, and the list goes on.

Colleagues, you were able to hear the viewpoints of major organized events through their spokespersons, who were able to arrange to be heard. I come from an area, Chaudières - Appalaches, where there are approximately 50 small festivals. Their representatives are not here today. They did not have the time to come. They're organized by volunteers, even though some of them do receive tobacco company sponsorships. They did not come to be heard. I'm convinced that that is also the case for your own regions.

Some people have called for a transition period, others have called for compensation. It is going rather far to say that it is prohibited to promote a tobacco product or a tobacco product-related brand element. As far as the product goes we could agree with you. Obviously the product is an incentive to smoke, but the brand... This is about the brand: du Maurier, etc.

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to speak on this point. I do not know if other colleagues will be doing this, but we think section 19 is abusive. The cause is noble, more than noble. However, as my father used to say, if you push something too far it can break. It is better to have something that is reasonable. That is what I wanted to say, Mr. Chairman, about section 19, before we vote.

Ms Picard: Mr. Chairman, I would like to add to what Mr. Dubé said. The section says: ``as authorized by this Act or the Regulations''. What bothers me about this bill is its constant reference to regulations. What are these regulations? I think that we are giving unspecified powers to regulate. Who says that... It is very vague. How can we vote on something that we are not even aware of? It is very difficult to refer to regulations because we don't know what they will say yet.

I think that this provides very broad authority to those who will define or apply these regulations. With respect to sponsorships, we, the legislators, may not even have a right to speak to these regulations. They may completely prohibit sponsorship without us having had any say, because we don't know what is going to be done and we don't know when it will be done.

I think that the use of the words ``Regulations'' and ``as authorized by this Act'' is much too restrictive as long as we do not know what these regulations are. The words used in this section are too strong.

I would like to remind you of some of the testimony we've heard here regarding the concern about regulations that we are not aware of and that could truly harm some cultural and sports events and therefore have a major economic impact.

I would like to remind you that Ontario Place, that has the Benson and Hedges fireworks, spoke about 818 jobs and two million dollars' worth of revenue. The government provides about $150,000 to this event and 90 per cent of the financing is provided by the tobacco company.

.1620

What people are asking us is to let them achieve their potential. I am concerned about the word ``regulations'' in this section because I think that it gives an enormous amount of power to the Governor in Council who at some unforeseen time may decide to take the necessary steps to set down regulations.

Mr. Chairman, if it is possible, I would also like to ask the Department of Health official for some information. How, under section 19, could one prohibit logos on race cars? Could the officials from the Department of Health explain that to me?

Mr. Dubé: It is not said in this section, but it was stated.

Ms Picard: Ah, it is not in this section.

Mr. Dubé: No, it is not in this section.

Ms Picard: It is not in this section.

Mr. Dubé: But you can put the question.

Ms Picard: I think that it would be very important to understand the prohibitions.

The Chairman: France Pégeot.

Ms Pégeot: Thank you. The question refers to section 24 of the bill, which covers sponsorship and what is allowed within the sponsorship. On the location of the sponsored event, this would be posters that would respect the 80, 10, 10 rule. Therefore, the logo could not appear on a race car, because it is not part of the promotional material allowed.

Ms Picard: Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Paul Szabo and Antoine Dubé.

Mr. Szabo: Mr. Chairman, on clause 19, with regard to ``by this Act or the regulations'', I simply ask, when we refer to an act of Parliament in history does that not automatically include, in the vernacular, the regulations set from time to time that may be amended? In other words, is this redundant?

Ms Ferguson: No, I don't think it's redundant. Clause 19 is essentially a residual clause that catches anything that is not specifically mentioned, either by a permission or a prohibition or that may not be foreseen at this time.

Following clause 19 are clauses that are more detailed in terms of what is prohibited, as well as more detailed in terms of what is permitted.

Mr. Szabo: Thank you.

The Chairman: Antoine Dubé and then Francine Lalonde.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: My colleague, Ms Picard, raised a point and she was right. This is not in section 19, except that the Minister clearly replied to a question put to him during a meeting we had with him, that it was clear in his mind that it would no longer be possible to put a tobacco company's logo on a race car. You will recall that Montreal Grand Prix representatives reacted in saying that at least ten cars sponsored by tobacco companies outside the country come to Montreal for the Grand Prix...

The Montreal Grand Prix is an event that is covered around the world. It is not just for the local public. The whole world sees the race.

It is true that this is not in section 19, but the Minister made a clear statement. He was being transparent; he made a clear statement and he formally indicated his intention. However, he will do this by regulation, and as long as it is not written down...

I would rather he not do this. Let me explain. It should not be in the bill, because we think it would be going too far. We would run the risk of finding ourselves in Australia's position; the government had to provide to an exception for Australia's Grand Prix.

But the Minister was clear. He said this during our meeting and the officials repeated it: logos would be included in a regulation that would probably be attached to section 19 or another section.

Ms Pégeot: No, that is not necessary. What I was saying was that what would be in the regulations is what will be allowed. Anything that isn't allowed would be prohibited.

Ms Picard: That has not been written down yet.

Mr. Dubé: If it is not written, it will be prohibited.

Ms Pégeot: The regulations will specify what promotional material is allowed.

Mr. Dubé: But for now, without regulations, we can conclude that anything that isn't written in the bill is prohibited.

.1625

Ms Pégeot: It all depends on how each provision is drafted. With respect to the specific question that you put about logos on race cars, this has not been allowed in writing in the bill and therefore it would be prohibited.

Mr. Dubé: There you are. That is a good example.

The Chairman: Francine Lalonde.

Ms Lalonde: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am proud to be able to work with this committee for a few hours. I am very familiar with human resources development which, in some respects, is related to health.

I am convinced that we need to promote abstinence from cigarette smoking. I have raised three teenagers with that philosophy, however, they can't always resist.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to point out that section 19 is very strict whereas section 18, that was discussed when I was not here, allows for this, for example, in the case of cinematographic productions ``whatever the mode or form of its expression''. That has been included in what is allowed.

The other day, I happened to watch a report on television about some very interesting research. Perhaps you have heard about it. The research showed that what most influenced young people was not what was printed on the cigarette package, but who they saw on television - models, young people, heroes, heroines - smoking in pleasant situations, whatever those pleasant situations were; we can all imagine them.

That was the most influential factor. It makes sense because when you are a young person, you are influenced by people who are attractive; you want to copy their strength, their attraction, everything. When those people smoke, you tend to imitate them, you don't tend to smoke the same brand as they do, a du Maurier, a Rothmans, etc.

Yet, and I understand this, we can't review all the cinematographic productions that exist, all the places where what happens in your life is simulated. We know that there is more smoking among working classes. I worked a lot in the Saint-Henri area; I can tell you that it is not just because Imperial Tobacco is there that people in this area smoke more. They roll their own cigarettes, but they often smoke because that is all they have to do.

Obviously on the one hand we are taking extremely strict measures that threaten the economy - and Montreal, where I come from, is extremely threatened given the high number of festivals that benefit from sponsorships - whereas on the other hand, we can't really affect what really influences young people. So we are not doing anything about that.

It seems to me that we are applying a double standard and that it really doesn't make any sense. I am sorry, but in this case I am speaking as the mother of a family.

[English]

Clause 19 agreed to

On clause 20 - False promotion

The Chairman: Antoine Dubé.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: I have an amendment, BQ-4.

.1630

I move that Bill C-71, in section 20, be amended by replacing line 19 on page 7 with the following:

erroneous impression about the characteristics, the health effects

Ms Picard: The section should be amended by inserting the word ``characteristics'' after the word...

Mr. Dubé: What is being added is: ``erroneous impression about the characteristics, the health effects''.

I think it is clear.

Ms Picard: I just wanted to point out why we want...

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, I spoke a bit quickly.

I just wanted to point out why we want to include the word ``characteristics''. This needs to be added because tobacco companies may attempt to manipulate some factors such as menthol or cigarette filters. The word ``characteristics'' includes those factors. The bill would be improved by adding this to the section. The clause would be more effective.

[English]

The Chairman: Could we please have comments from the officials?

[Translation]

Ms Pégeot: We have no problem with what Mr. Dubé is suggesting: this seems to be a reasonable amendment which would improve the legislation.

[English]

Amendment agreed to

Clause 20 as amended agreed to

On clause 21 - Testimonials

The Chairman: Mr. Volpe.

This is in the G-1.5 document.

Mr. Volpe: In G-1.5, for the sake of privity it is a technical amendment. We now have a precise date so the precise date is introduced, thus making unnecessary the clause on lines 34 and 33. Starting after ``on'' we would insert ``December 2, 1996'' in the English.

[Translation]

and in French, after the word ``Canada'' we would include ``le 2 décembre 1996''.

[English]

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

[Translation]

Ms Picard: I didn't even understand the amendment.

Mr. Dubé: First, I had a question.

[English]

The Chairman: It's the document G-1.5, but you have to go through to the appropriate clause at the top of the page. We're on clause 21, page 7. Unfortunately, these pages are not numbered so you have to identify them by the clause at the top.

All Mr. Volpe is saying is when the bill was drafted we didn't know the date. We now know the date, so we're just inserting the actual date the bill was introduced.

Mr. Dubé.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: We are talking about section 21, are we not?

[English]

The Chairman: We're on the amendment to clause 21. This is Mr. Volpe's amendment to clause 21.

[Translation]

Ms Picard: Mr. Volpe's amendment.

Mr. Dubé: I will wait with my comment, but before adopting the full section, I have a question to ask.

[English]

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: The question is now on the amended clause.

Before I put it, do you have a question, Mr. Dubé?

.1635

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: What is meant by ``by means of...an endorsement...''? This is on line 25, section 21.

The Chairman: France Pégeot.

Ms Pégeot: Thank you.

Usually an endorsement of a product or a service refers to the use of a celebrity by a manufacturer or a business to promote the merits of a product or simply to endorse that product.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay, Mr. Dubé.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: I have a slight problem with that section, but for another reason. Testimonials are included, regardless of the way in which they are presented or communicated. It is prohibited to use a testimonial. Does that mean that the representative of an event, such as the Montreal Grand Prix, would be prohibited from providing a testimonial regarding cigarettes?

The Chairman: France.

Ms Pégeot: It depends. In your example, the Grand Prix: Jacques Villeneuve promoting the merits of Rothmans cigarettes would be considered a testimonial.

Mr. Dubé: I have a comment. I waited to put this question on purpose because I remember having had a discussion during a briefing with Ms Pégeot.

This all depends on how well known the person is. She said at the time, and perhaps she could confirm or change this today, that a person who was not very well known could provide testimonials and that someone who was a little better known could not do that. This makes it very difficult to apply that type of provision.

I know that in Ottawa, I am a nonentity, but in my riding, without being a star, I am very well known, Mr. Chairman. If I were to go to an event in my riding, I could be prohibited from behaving in a way that would be allowed in Ottawa. I'm being ironic, but wording such as this section's could lead to that. I think it is very excessive.

That is why I am stating right now that I will vote against that section. I do not have a better formula to suggest right away because I have not had the time to think about it. If I am emphasizing this to my colleagues opposite, it is because one has to realize that when one is a member, one has to be aware of what one is voting for.

[English]

Clause 21 as amended agreed to

On clause 22 - Advertising

The Chairman: Joe Volpe.

Mr. Volpe: We have an amendment again on G-1.5. The explanation there is pretty self-explanatory. But on page 8, line 31 - this is lines 20 to 27 in the French - we just want to eliminate ``or an aspect of living''. The sense of ``or an aspect of living'' is captured by the phrase ``a way of life'' as per internationally recognized dictionaries. It's a redundancy we want to eliminate to tighten up the wording.

.1640

The Chairman: It looks as if it's only tidying up.

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Grant Hill.

Mr. Hill: Turn to R-7 in your big document. Page 8 in the bill says:

a publication that has an adult readership of not less than a prescribed percentage

I've heard the minister talk about how a 15% youth readership was the dividing point, so I would like to prescribe the percentage as 85%.

Mr. Szabo: Good amendment. Question.

The Chairman: Any comment from the department on this one? The question is on the amendment just moved by Mr. Hill.

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Clause 22 as amended agreed to

Clause 23 agreed to

On clause 24 - Sponsorship promotion

[Translation]

Ms Picard: Mr. Chairman, I think that we are moving too quickly. We have many documents and I'm not able to follow. I would like to have some time to read section 23 before telling you whether or not I agree with it.

[English]

The Chairman: Madam Picard, in your absence earlier today, when we began this exercise, I gave an assurance I also want to give to you and Francine. From notations here the chair is aware on which items you have amendments. With the one I put just now, clause 23, the reason we did it fairly quickly is that according to my notations there are no amendments on this particular one.

[Translation]

Ms Picard: Even if there is no amendment, I may need some information. I think that the department officials are here to answer our questions, even though I have no amendments to move with respect to this section.

[English]

The Chairman: I have no difficulty with that. All you have to do is let me know you want to speak and you will get recognized. No problem. We can go back. We're trying to expedite here, not railroad. I just wanted to explain why we did it quickly. But keep with us. If you want to speak, we can't read your mind; you have to tell us you want to speak.

[Translation]

Ms Picard: I understand, Mr. Chairman. I simply want time to look at this section so that I know what we are voting on. I am not in the habit of voting on things that I haven't even had time to understand.

Fine for section 23. You can move on to section 24.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Volpe.

Mr. Volpe: I move G-1.5. Again, it's an amendment just to clean up and tighten up the language and to make it consistent with the language we just changed in clause 22. It's there for your consideration. I propose we move on it. It's technical.

The Chairman: The amendment by Mr. Volpe would clear up some redundant wording.

Amendment agreed to

Mr. Hill: This is still a clause I have trouble with. I know it was explained, but the wording is very complex here. It literally gives permission to a person to display tobacco products in a location where youth are allowed to go. I know the explanation was that there was a previous clause that would make this redundant, but I can't imagine that we have to be this obtuse with our wording - if you'll pardon my being obtuse with my wording.

.1645

If you take this clause on its own, it says that a person ``may display'' tobacco product-related brand elements in a spot associated with young persons. Can you reassure me that it should not have been ``may not display''?

The Chairman: Ms Ferguson.

Ms Ferguson: Subclause 24(1) identifies that this is a permission that you can promote a sponsored event, person, entity, activity, and so on. Then you read paragraphs 24(1)(a) and (b). If it's associated with young people or if it has lifestyle connotations, then subclauses 24(2) and (3) apply.

Subclause 24(1) has to be read in concert with subclauses 24(2) and (3), which articulate the restrictions that would apply if the promotion is youth-oriented or has a lifestyle connotation.

Mr. Hill: I may be simple, but I still read from this:

a person may display a tobacco product-related brand element in a promotion that is used in the sponsorship of a person, entity, event, activity or permanent facility if the person, entity, event, activity or facility

(a) is associated with young persons....

That is backwards.

Ms Ferguson: It should not be read in isolation. It's read in the context of subclauses 24(2) and (3), and what this clause says is if the sponsorship promotion, which is permitted, is youth oriented or has a lifestyle connotation, then the restrictions that are articulated in subclauses 24(2) and (3) would then apply. It's a mechanism to link the restrictions to the guidance of the Supreme Court with respect to lifestyle and youth-oriented promotions.

The Chairman: I see both of the Bloc people, but I want to clear this up.

Are you on this point, Paul?

Mr. Szabo: Yes.

The Chairman: Clear this up, okay?

Mr. Szabo: In the preamble, it's subject to subclauses 24(2) and (3). Therefore, as the staff has said, subclauses 24(2) and (3) have to be read together with subclause 24(1).

Mr. Hill: Must it be worded this way - vague, obtuse, difficult to comprehend? If I presented this to a grade 12 class, they would all say this means to go ahead and promote everything where youth are.

Mr. Szabo: Subject to subclauses 24(2) and (3).

The Chairman: Mr. McNaught.

Mr. McNaught: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is a complex area, Dr. Hill, and I know I wouldn't be insulting you by saying that for a second time. It is a complex, specific subject that's being addressed here. To the best of our ability, I think both Health Canada and the legal advisers have tried to craft something that perhaps for once, in the face of other criticism from elsewhere, sets everything out but, in order to do so, has to put it in a context. I think, with respect, it probably does achieve that purpose you want to have achieved.

The Chairman: Judy Ferguson.

Ms Ferguson: Dr. Hill, if I could add one other point, clause 19, which is the general prohibition, without clause 24, would prohibit sponsorship altogether.

So you have a general prohibition in clause 19. Subclause 24(1) then says, yes, you can promote these events, activities, persons, and so on; however.... That's where it kicks in with respect to lifestyle advertising and youth-oriented advertising. If those promotions do reflect those elements, then the restrictions in subclauses 24(2) and (3) apply.

So it's read in association with clause 19, which is the broad prohibition, and it's read in concert with subclause 24(1), which is the permission.

The Chairman: Mrs. Lalonde, on this point, I believe.

[Translation]

Ms Lalonde: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

.1650

We are against this amendment because it would not make any sense to adopt it in any case. If we were to adopt this amendment, we would have to eliminate the rest of the section that restricts sponsorships. In order to restrict them, you have to start by allowing them. That would make more sense to me.

I have read many collective agreements and I am familiar with this jargon. It is jargon. Unfortunately, not very many people read legislation.

[English]

The Chairman: Francine, if I may, we don't have an amendment as such.

[Translation]

Ms Lalonde: It is because I have it before me.

[English]

The Chairman: He was raising a question about it but he has not put down any amendments.

[Translation]

Ms Lalonde: I'm sorry. I should have said that if the amendment was tabled, it would render the rest of the section useless. It is not even acceptable, because it contradicts the rest of the section.

[English]

The Chairman: So the question is on clause 24, as amended by Mr. Volpe's motion at the moment.

Clause 24 as amended agreed to

[Translation]

Ms Picard: I had understood that Mr. Hill had an amendment and had put a question to the officials. But I did not understand Mr. Volpe's amendment.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay.

[Translation]

Ms Picard: I didn't know that we were voting on the amendment. We were still with Mr. Hill who was to move an amendment.

[English]

The Chairman: No, in the document labelled G-1.5, you go to clause 24 on page 9, lines 7 and 8 in the English and lines 8 and 9 in the French. Mr. Volpe had moved that amendment and I had put the question -

[Translation]

Ms Picard: This is all too complicated.

[English]

The Chairman: I had put the question, Pauline, on that amendment, and the amendment had carried. So we were not voting a moment ago on that amendment. We had already done that. Is that correct?

[Translation]

Ms Picard: Yes.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay. Then I called a question on clause 24 as amended, and Grant made a comment but didn't move an amendment.

[Translation]

Ms Picard: Mr. Chairman, if you recall, I put up my hand to say something and I waited until Mr. Hill had finished his discussion with the officials.

[English]

The Chairman: That's right, and I said -

[Translation]

Ms Picard: After that, it was Ms Lalonde's turn and you indicated that I should wait. However, I had a question to put to the officials and I was not able to do that. You then moved on to the amendments, and now you are saying that we have finished with section 24.

[English]

The Chairman: Pauline, it's not a problem. We can revert. That's not the issue.

For the record, so we know what we're doing here - and if you want me to go twice as slow or twice as fast, I can do either - after Mr. Hill was finished, I then said now the question is on the amended clause, and I paused a moment and then I put the question. All right?

I looked in your direction and I got no indication from you. If I misread you, that's not a problem. We all make mistakes, and although I declared it carried, I'm sure there's no problem with going back to clause 24 if you want to comment on it.

I ask everybody to work with us on this, because we could be here all night. If that's somebody's intention, to keep us here all night, then let me tell you beforehand what I understand the situation to be, because I sense - and I want the whole world to hear this one - that this is not about -

A voice: [Inaudible - Editor]

The Chairman: No, the chair can say a few things once in a while, and I'm going to hear you after.

The chair senses that a good amount of the debate is not at all about the substance of the bill but about ensuring we stay here long enough so that this doesn't get back in the House before Christmas.

If that is what's motivating some of you, let me tell you that if you looked at your rules of procedure, you will find that without unanimous consent - which is yours to give or withhold - there is not the chance of a snowball you know where of this getting through another stage in the House before Christmas, even if we terminate our clause-by-clause right now. There's no chance of that getting through.

So if anybody's motivated by the need to prevent this from getting to a further stage in the House, please save us all the time, because that is not going to happen and you have my guarantee that it's not going to happen.

What I would like to do at some time between now and Christmas Eve, when I hang up my sock, is get this thing through committee stage.

Now, Pauline.

.1655

[Translation]

Ms Picard: Mr. Chairman, I am fully aware that we have to finish consideration of the bill, but I am also aware of the Standing Orders.

I would like to say that we are most concerned about section 24 because it is about sponsorships. I can therefore not let it go without having said anything. We all have something to say about this, and it is impossible to move on to section 25 before we finish discussing section 24.

Regardless, we are absolutely against the prohibition of sponsorships. This is impossible, because it will kill an economy. Your constituents will hold you responsible because everyone says that this is a crazy business.

Ask people and you will see that anyone, even non-smokers, will tell you that it is absolutely unthinkable to prohibit the sponsorships that stimulate the economy. We know that the economy is at its lowest level, that people are poor, and rather than take positive measures that will create a few jobs, you want to eliminate sponsorships. In the name of what? That is what I wonder. During the hearings, no one convinced us that this would have any significant impact.

The purpose of this bill is to prevent young people from smoking. This morning, the doctor confirmed that no study had been carried out in this area and that in any case, it was very difficult to do such a study because this is a problem related to individual behaviour.

We from Quebec must advocate certain positions regarding the greater area of Montreal where the biggest festivals in Canada are held. I can't accept that this bill be passed without us having had our say.

[English]

The Chairman: With respect, Pauline, you're talking about yesterday's battle. We inadvertently passed a clause. We very graciously undid it. You're now preaching about something that happened and is over with. We have undone the clause. We didn't do it maliciously or any other way. We did it because we thought the debate was completed on it. Now we've undone it.

So why don't we debate the issue? We'd be a lot better off if we just debated the issue. The debate is now on clause 24 as amended.

Grant.

Mr. Hill: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to withdraw the motion I placed on the floor, which was to place the word ``not'' in the sentence. As it's now been explained to me, if that would make the process a little easier -

The Chairman: No, we understood that was done in the sense that you never put it on the floor.

Mr. Dubé.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: We also want to move ahead because of the Christmas recess, but not to the point of quickly moving through section 24. If I read the Standing Orders properly, the purpose of our work in committee is to attempt to convince our colleagues opposite, the government majority. And if we have to speak about this after Christmas, it will give them time to reflect. We think section 24 is essential and that is why we are focusing on it.

I myself asked the senior officials whether there was any other country in the world that had done this. The answer was no, that this was the first time. What did you use to set this ceiling of 10 per cent, I asked? The answer was: ``We don't really know, it seemed to be what people wanted''.

I asked the tobacco companies, that have a code of ethics, what they set the ceiling at. I'm reminding you of this so that you can think about it during the holidays.

The code of ethics states that tobacco companies voluntarily use a percentage that does not exceed 25 per cent. Remember that 25 per cent. In the bill, you have put 10 per cent and there are all kinds of possibilities.

I cannot put myself in the government's position and I am not the Minister, but this is the time to speak to you if we want to influence you. The parliamentary secretary often speaks to the Minister and we also often speak to him. I know that he is aware of these problems and we must bring him round to our position. I think I understand his attitude, as well as that of the people opposite and of the anti-tobacco group: they know what the effects of a 10 per cent restriction would be; it's about the same as a prohibition. In fact, this is mainly being done so that it won't be dismissed by the Supreme Court, because in fact the Minister could have prohibited this if he had wanted to.

Therefore, he is suggesting 10 per cent. But what does 10 per cent allow one to do? Think about it during the holidays.

.1700

Try to find a way of allowing for a transition period. These people will need to be compensated. Section 24 is at the heart of the bill, compared to section 19, which is much more general. This restriction has to be thought about in terms of sponsorships for cultural and sports events.

I would like to draw your attention to another type of organization besides the sports and cultural organizations. There are also humanitarian organizations. I will use an example, which I don't believe would ever happen. Imagine that the Canadian Cancer Society needs a sponsorship for an event. Of course, it is not going to ask a tobacco company to sponsor it, but there are provisions in the bill that could restrict them. Section 24 should therefore be looked at closely.

If I were you, I would suggest standing section 24 and putting it aside until report stage when we could reconsider it. But until then, we need to seriously think about it.

I would not, however, want the anti-tobacco groups to think that we are encouraging tobacco consumption because we are fighting against reducing sponsorships.

I am not a smoker, I do not work for tobacco companies and I do not have an uncle who works for a tobacco company. I agree with the bill's objective, except as regards sponsorships, particularly in the case of Quebec where $30 million are invested in culture.

My friends opposite, you are in politics. The Liberal Party is having a hard time in Quebec. It should look at the polls on this issue in Quebec. It should realize that people do not understand why we want to prohibit sponsorship, especially given that Montreal has economic problems. This is especially the case for Montreal, but it is also true in regions outside Montreal.

I'm just telling you to be careful. I am giving you a warning. I don't want to teach you any lessons, I simply want to attempt to convince you, because even tobacco company representatives told us that they are sensitive to this issue. Even an anti-tobacco group was talking about attempting a transition period. Others have mentioned compensation. Think about it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: Before I recognize the other interveners, let me say that Mr. Dubé is undoubtedly right in his assessment of this. It's probably the hottest issue in the bill.

May I suggest that the committee consider standing this clause for the time being and working through the others? It seems to me that we may want to have a debate on this issue, so we could stand it and deal with it towards the end of our clause-by-clause analysis.

Is there no unanimity?

Mr. Dhaliwal.

Mr. Dhaliwal: May I make a comment?

The Chairman: No. To be fair, I have other people over here -

Mr. Dhaliwal: It's just to clarify -

The Chairman: Okay, if it's just for clarification.

Mr. Dhaliwal: If the Bloc members want us to look at it, I'd like to see what their solutions are and what other options they're providing. I haven't heard any options from my colleagues as to what they'd like to see changed. I've only heard them criticize this. In order for me to think about what changes...perhaps they can give us some proposals that they think should be brought forward so we can think about this.

You haven't brought any proposals forward. I'd like to hear from you. I agree with you. This is an important area. Give us some options and give us some alternatives.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: Mr. Chairman...

Ms Picard: Mr. Chairman, I would like to reply to Mr. Dhaliwal.

We're all precisely here to speak. This is being done right under our noses. We can't discuss it together. Could we discuss measures that should perhaps be taken? That is why we are here in committee. It is not to contradict each other but to discuss this together. We are here to work on a bill and we are telling you that this section would harm the economy. We do not think that it achieves the objectives set out.

[English]

The Chairman: Order, please. I now have a point of order from Mr. Volpe.

Mr. Volpe: A point of order, Mr. Chairman, just for the sake of moving some things along.

I realize that my colleague opposite wants to debate this at great length. I would like to be accommodating, as I am sure all of my colleagues would like to be. The point being raised by colleagues opposite may have some validity in their minds, but in our minds this is one of the most crucial elements of the legislation. It's designed specifically for that.

.1705

Now, if we want to discuss this a little later on, may I make a suggestion, and I hope I have some agreement around on both sides. We can stand this down until we finish with all the other amendments, and carry on. But I caution you that my willingness to collaborate and cooperate is going to be strained if we're going to do this on every clause.

The Chairman: The suggestion is that we stand clause 24. Do you understand what this means? We'll come back to it, obviously, before the end of deliberation on clause-by-clause. Agreed?

Clause 24 as amended allowed to stand

The Chairman: I realize, in fairness to Ms Picard in particular...the clerk pointed out to me what part of the problem was. By the time the translation gets to her, the three or four seconds I was allowing for people to make interventions is gone. I put the question probably a bit too quickly. We'll keep that in mind.

Clauses 25 and 26 agreed to

On clause 27 - Non-tobacco product displaying tobacco brand element

[Translation]

The Chairman: Antoine Dubé.

Mr. Dubé: Section 27's objective is good but we think it is risky with respect to the Supreme Court. This section could be challenged, because it contains an absolute prohibition to display a brand element on a promotional product, even though exemptions and conditions are included.

We think there is a risk. I would like to ask a question about that to a representative from the Department of Justice. Mr. Chairman, we asked for a legal opinion and I would like to know if that legal opinion could be tabled with the committee.

[English]

The Chairman: Ms Pégeot.

[Translation]

Ms Pégeot: When the bill was being drawn up, we worked very closely with lawyers from the Department of Justice and also with lawyers who are Charter experts. Furthermore, as was confirmed in the press release, Minister Rock, who is the Attorney General, is confident that this legislation will meet the Charter conditions.

Mr. Dubé: Is the Minister's opinion based on the opinion of a legal advisor from his Department?

Ms Pégeot: Yes. Any bill, before being tabled in the House of Commons, must be approved by the Minister of Justice.

Mr. Dubé: I have a question for the Chairman and the Clerk: can a committee require that a legal opinion such as that one be tabled?

I can't remember which standing order says that a committee can require that any document be tabled. Does ``any document'' includes a legal opinion?

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Bellemare.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellemare: Usually when a bill is before a committee, the committee can request replies to its questions. That having been said, if a witness disobeys the committee's orders, the committee has no other recourse but to report to the House and propose that the House take appropriate measures.

.1710

Mr. Dubé: In that case, Mr. Chairman, may I request, with the committee members' agreement, that the legal opinion mentioned by Ms Pégeot be tabled? This concerns not only this provision but other provisions in the bill as well, because it gives us the opportunity to see how well these provisions would withstand probable challenges.

[English]

The Chairman: Before inviting France Pégeot to speak again, I'd make two brief points to you.

First, I'm sure Justice would regard any advice they gave to the client department as privileged advice and therefore not available otherwise. The second point I'd make to you is that the committee is at liberty at any time to request legal opinions on an issue, but that's quite a different issue. I understand what you're asking for is the advice given on this particular issue. Is that correct?

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: Yes, and I am acting on the fact that a committee can request this if everyone agrees, obviously, and knowing full well, according to what the assistant to the clerk just mentioned, that witnesses are not obliged to comply. But I'm asking the committee if we can request this, even if the answer may be no. At least we will have made the request.

[English]

The Chairman: France Pégeot.

[Translation]

Ms Pégeot: All I wanted to add is that the bill reflects the legal opinion that we were given from legal Charter experts when we were drawing up the bill.

[English]

The Chairman: Joe Volpe has an amendment.

Mr. Volpe: Yes. Again, it's another one that simply tightens the language to make it consistent with two other amendments we have moved so far. This refers to clause 27, page 10, lines 14 and 15 in the English and 17 and 18 in the French.

The Chairman: These are tidying-up amendments.

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Harb Dhaliwal.

Mr. Dhaliwal: I have a question on clause 27. You may recall that some of the NGOs put up a sign showing how the cigarette companies advertise a different product...and showing a large cigarette sample on it. I think it was a non-smokers' association. You may remember it. They were advertising another product, but they made it look like a cigarette package as well.

Does this cover it so that tobacco companies can't do that? They would sell a lighter, say, and the lighter would be small but there would be a view of a cigarette pack. I wonder if clause 27 gives you the power to deal with advertisements of this nature.

Ms Ferguson: I believe that's clause 26, which is subject to the regulations. That would be ``an accessory''.

Mr. Dhaliwal: So a lighter with a tobacco product logo on it would be an accessory - not after the fact, just a tobacco....

The Chairman: Grant Hill.

Mr. Hill: What Mr. Dhaliwal was referring to was an ad that had a Peter Stuyvesant container with matches in it rather than cigarettes, but to the average individual looking at it, there is no question it was a cigarette package. Would that cigarette package, with matches in it rather than cigarettes, be covered by our legislation?

In other words, it looked like a cigarette package but it did not advertise that. It had on it Peter Stuyvesant and allumettes. It was not advertising cigarettes.

.1715

Ms Ferguson: Dr. Hill, subclause 26(2) covers that, and it's proscribed as well.

The Chairman: We're on clause 27. The amendment has been moved by Joe Volpe. It looks like just tidying up.

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Clause 27 as amended agreed to

On clause 28 - Exception - tobacco product

[Translation]

Ms Picard: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment. I move that Bill C-71, in clause 28, be amended by

a) replacing line 17 on page 10 with the following:

28.(1) A person

It is the same as earlier on. What are these regulations? I think that there is much too much authority to regulate. I would like the section to begin by: ``A person may sell a tobacco product:'' instead of ``Subject to the regulations, a person may...''. We do not know what is meant by ``Subject to the regulations''.

The same would apply to sub-section (2):

b) by replacing line 25 on page 10 with the following:

(2) A person may

[English]

The Chairman: Joe Volpe.

[Translation]

Mr. Volpe: Mr. Chairman, accepting the Bloc Québécois' amendment would eliminate section 19.

[English]

So while it may be well intentioned, it goes back on everything we've done so far.

The Chairman: Somebody had better explain that to me.

Mr. Volpe: We're continuing the authorization of the regulations as per clause 19 earlier, which authorizes certain activities and no other. So this just refers to that. It goes back and says that, subject to the regulations, only those things that are permissible, as long as they are permissible, a person may.... That's all it does.

[Translation]

The Chairman: France Pégeot.

Ms Pégeot: The reason we need regulations in sub-section 28(1) is that we want to be able to control the way in which such a product can be advertised.

[English]

The Chairman: Colleen.

[Translation]

Ms Picard: But why? When you say ``subject to the regulations'', you are able to explain that to us, but the bill does not indicate what those regulations are. You seem to know what they are but I do not have that information. When I read that clause, what am I referring to? I would have to ask you what the regulations are. That is why I am telling you that it is not very explicit. What does it mean?

Ms Pégeot: The regulations have not yet been defined and to develop them, we are going to use the usual procedure for developing regulations, which involves extensive consultations with the various stakeholders.

The situation described in section 28 does not in fact currently exists on the market. If such a situation were to arise, we would use the necessary regulations to avoid tobacco products being promoted and having a harmful effect on health.

Ms Picard: You are presuming things under ``subject to the regulations''. You are telling us that this is not in effect yet. I think it is very difficult to vote or apply something that is only being presumed.

.1720

These regulations have not been written and we think that we could add a qualification. That is why I prefer that this section be amended.

[English]

The Chairman: Further discussion on the amendment proposed by Pauline Picard, if not the question, is on her amendment. It's labelled as BQ-5.

Amendment negatived

Clause 28 agreed to on division

The Chairman: Maybe I could just address the question of the ringing bell and the consequences that flow therefrom. We will recess the committee very soon because our presence is required in the House. There are about 11 minutes on the clock at the moment. We will recess the bill in a minute or two.

There are options. We can come back here directly after, which means we will have to make a decision within 15 minutes of coming back as to how long we're going to stay, because some of us have other commitments.

The suggestion has been made that we recess the committee now until 8 p.m. Is there any discussion?

I've just learned there is more than one vote.

Pauline.

[Translation]

Ms Picard: Mr. Chairman, I prefer the solution that you have suggested, that is, to finish at6:00 p.m. and that we continue this later. However, because there is a vote, perhaps we could adjourn for today and continue at 10:00 am. tomorrow morning, because we have to consider section 24. I think that you all have obligations and a rather heavy schedule. If the committee agrees, I would suggest coming back tomorrow morning.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Dubé.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: I also have personal reasons for asking that we come back tomorrow morning. I am sick and I admit it would be a big effort for me to keep on going beyond the vote. I'd be willing to come back tomorrow at 10 am. Even if there are caucus meetings, I think that we can attend the caucus and then come to the meeting at 10 am. I think the essential points have already been made.

[English]

The Chairman: There have been two or three suggestions. I need a motion. We'll make a decision.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: I move tomorrow at 10 am. Do you want a motion of adjournment and return at10 a.m. tomorrow morning?

[English]

The Chairman: No. I heard two or three suggestions, one about tonight and one about tomorrow morning. I suggested the best way to resolve this would be with a motion. At that point, Mr. Szabo asked for the floor and I heard a motion from him. Would he repeat it?

Mr. Szabo: Mr. Chairman, I move that we return at 8 this evening.

The Chairman: The motion is that we recess the committee until 8 p.m.

[Translation]

We shall come back this evening.

[English]

Motion agreed to

The Chairman: The committee stands recessed until 8 p.m.

.1725

.2014

The Chairman: Order, please. Welcome back.

The good news is that you can throw away all those documents you were using before supper except the bill itself, because our worthy staff has come up with one document, the master of all masters. I hope you have a copy of it. Not only is it in one copy but it's numbered. I want to thank all those concerned for doing that.

First of all, it's my pleasure to welcome to the committee two of our colleagues who are not members of the committee - we're very glad to have them - my good friend Suzanne Tremblay, from Rimouski - Témiscouata,

[Translation]

and also

[English]

our good friend Yves Rocheleau

[Translation]

from Trois-Rivières. Welcome to everyone.

.2015

[English]

On clause 29 - Sales promotions

The Chairman: Shall clause 29 carry?

Joe Volpe.

Mr. Volpe: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, this is a very minor amendment.

The Chairman: Excuse me. To anybody who is introducing an amendment, just refer to our new hymn book, will you, and give us the page number?

Mr. Volpe: It's on page 53.

The amendment seeks to replace the word ``person'' with ``manufacturer'' or ``retailer,'' and in the French, F aux fabriquants et aux détaillants, in order to, as was noted, keep and maintain the spirit of addressing the commercial context of the act.

The Chairman: Would this fall under the category of tidying up?

Mr. Volpe: I think so.

The Chairman: Okay.

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Clause 29 as amended agreed to

Clause 30 agreed to

On clause 31 - Communication media

The Chairman: Keith Martin.

Mr. Martin: I would move an amendment. It states the following -

The Chairman: What page number?

Mr. Martin: It's clause 31 on page 54. It replaces lines 22 and 23 on page 11 of the bill itself.

Basically, it says the following:

a publication that is published outside Canada, a broadcast that originates outside Canada or a communication that originates outside Canada

The purpose of that is to ensure that the ban extends to other forms of advertising, including direct mail and telemarketing, which is not covered under the bill as it is right now, unless our experts from Health Canada would like to point out otherwise.

The Chairman: Well, except that I'd certainly want some advice on whether.... Isn't this a kind of Helms-Burton in reverse type of thing? Can we legislate beyond our jurisdiction?

I can understand that we can control the entry of a publication into the country, but what about a broadcast signal, for example?

Mr. McNaught.

Mr. McNaught: Mr. Chairman, I could be of some assistance here with respect both to the honourable members from the Bloc Québécois and from the Reform Party.

I think we, in addition - speaking as it were for Health Canada as well - have been considering the same question, and it concerns the potential for drawing in cyberspace, which as a legal proposition is a lot like nailing jelly to the wall. People may be interested in trying to preserve the potential to draw in new technologies or new developments in technology, subject to evidentiary problems that arise with respect to such issues as you mentioned a moment ago concerning extraterritoriality, and so on.

With that in mind - and it's not my province to move it or suggest it - I would nevertheless respectfully refer the committee and others to page 55 and the Bloc Québécois's suggestion in this regard. I'm simply drawing this to the committee's attention for its consideration.

In my view, that would be an interesting and appropriate legal provision that would take into account just about everybody's concerns, subject, of course, to their comments on this issue. It leaves the potential for drawing in other types of communication. Attempting to define Internet with respect to a word such as ``communication'' is a little dicey at this time in the development of the law in cyberspace, as it were. So the Bloc Québécois's suggestion, I think, best preserves that overall potential, without being too specific.

Those would be my comments.

The Chairman: Suzanne Tremblay.

.2020

[Translation]

Ms Tremblay (Rimouski - Témiscouata): Since I've just arrived, I'd like you to explain what amendment we are discussing. I gather that on page 55 we have a motion from the Bloc Québécois whereas on page 54 we have a Reform Party motion. What exactly is being proposed? A prohibition of all advertising in foreign magazines? Am I to understand that amendment BQ-6 which would add the terms ``any communication other than a publication or broadcast that originates outside Canada'' is aimed at prohibiting any advertising?

[English]

The Chairman: Well, maybe -

[Translation]

Ms Tremblay: Honestly, we were opposed to the Helms-Burton Act and considered that the United States was overdoing things. We have to be careful we don't fall into the same trap ourselves.

I buy lots of magazines from France and Britain with ads from Rothmans, Pall Mall, Camel etc. If I'm not allowed to buy them here but have to go to France to get them during the weekend, it's going to start costing a lot of money. The magazines are already expensive enough. As a citizen, I have the right to read the magazines I want to read and this proposal strikes me as rather exaggerated, even if these magazines do promote tobacco and particularly if they come from outside Canada. When we see bits and pieces put together like this... May be that's because I've just joined your committee, I am not putting the matter in its proper context. Perhaps I could be enlightened.

[English]

The Chairman: Yes. In partial response to Suzanne, I'd just remind the committee to look at the subclause that would be amended, subclause 31(3). Just look at the initial wording of this clause. What we're talking about is ``No person in Canada shall'' display, etc. The amendment flows from this. It's important to keep this in mind during your debate.

In the interests of facilitating, Mr. McNaught made a suggestion, and I didn't get the reaction from the Reform.

Keith Martin.

Mr. Martin: I think, Mr. Chairman, this would be acceptable to us. If in the opinion of Mr. McNaught the Bloc's amendment would be more inclusive and broader than the one I proposed, then I would be prepared to withdraw my motion and support the Bloc's.

The Chairman: Mr. Martin withdraws his motion. Do we have any motions?

Mr. Martin: Mr. Chairman, if the Bloc isn't going to put their motion forward and if they're going to withdraw theirs, then mine stands.

The Chairman: This is what we're waiting for.

Mr. Martin: Okay. I'm only going to withdraw it if they're going to put theirs forward.

[Translation]

The Chairman: It's on page 55.

[English]

This is on page 55.

[Translation]

Ms Picard: I move amendment BQ-6. Is it necessary to read it? No. Did we vote in favour and adopt it?

[English]

The Chairman: The motion is on the Bloc amendment on page 55.

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Clause 31 as amended agreed to

Clause 32 agreed to

On clause 33 - Regulations

Mr. Volpe: I have an amendment, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Joe Volpe.

Mr. Volpe: It's just a tightening-up one.

The Chairman: What is the hymn number?

This is on page 59.

.2025

Mr. Volpe: Thank you very much. Page 59. It's in the realm of tightening up the language. In paragraph (e), at line 10 on page 12, we just want to change the word ``prescribing'' to ``respecting''.

Amendment agreed to

Clause 33 as amended agreed to

Clauses 34 to 39 inclusive agreed to

On clause 40 - Application for restoration

The Chairman: Joe Volpe.

Mr. Volpe: On page 60 there's another tightening-up-of-the-language type of amendment, Mr. Chair.

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Clause 40 as amended agreed to

Clause 41 agreed to

On clause 42 - Regulations

The Chairman: Grant Hill.

Mr. Hill: Clause 42 is the pivotal clause for myself and my party. You've heard me speak many times about the regulations and how loose they are and how we desire, after the consultation processes and the vetting process and the Order in Council, to have some scrutiny by elected members of Parliament. The amendment we put forward is to accomplish that, to have a subcommittee of the House.

You'll actually see three amendments that do virtually the same thing. On page 61 there's a Liberal amendment. On page 63 you'll find the Bloc one. On page 64 you'll find ours. All three of these amendments are directed in the same direction. As I've looked over all three of them I cannot find significant differences. I would be delighted to -

The Chairman: Bear with me, Grant. I want everyone to look at page 64, because what is proposed here is slightly different from what we're considering now. The question before the chair now is whether clause 42 should carry, which is distinct, Grant, from what you're moving. You're moving that there be a new clause called 42.1. I want to deal with them separately, if you don't mind.

Clause 42 agreed to

The Chairman: Now Grant, would you move your amendment.

Mr. Hill: Without the preamble, I presume.

As I say, there are three of them here. The Liberal member has moved one, on pages 61 and 62. Page 63 is the Bloc one. Page 64 is the Reform one. It looks to me as if we all have the same view here, the same idea. Take your pick.

The Chairman: Are they different?

Suzanne Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms Tremblay: We are withdrawing motion BQ-8 on page 63.

[English]

Mr. Hill: There's one less to choose from.

.2030

[Translation]

Ms Tremblay: Exactly.

[English]

The Chairman: Could we seek an opinion from Mr. McNaught? He seems to be the bravest in terms of venturing opinions.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. McNaught: Not guilty, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Could he advise us as to which of the two remaining items on the smorgasbord he has?

Mr. McNaught: Yes, if the chair would be gracious enough to indulge me for about thirty seconds.

The Chairman: Yes, go ahead.

Mr. McNaught: The better though not necessarily helpful view for the committee from Health Canada is that it's a matter in which we shouldn't be offering an opinion. It's essentially procedural.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mrs. Tremblay: What are you paid for?

Mr. McNaught: I'm getting the same amount of overtime pay as everyone else here, Madam.

The Chairman: Okay.

Paul Szabo.

Mr. Szabo: Mr. Chair, Mr. Hill has basically said to take our choice. I wonder if the mover of the amendment on page 61 would care to make a case as to why it would be preferable to the one on page 64.

A voice: Who is the mover?

[Translation]

Ms Tremblay: [Inaudible]

Mr. Volpe: I'd like to ask the same question concerning page 63.

[English]

The Chairman: If nobody's here to speak to that, I consider the motion on page 64 to be on the floor right now.

Mr. Hill, do you want to speak to it? Then we'll put the question.

Mr. Hill: As I say, the idea behind this is simply that when the regulations have gone through the process, they should be vetted by elected members of Parliament rather than by bureaucrats or by Order in Council. I've heard the concern from both sides of this debate that the regulations might do something they were worried about. I've heard it from those who are strongly for the tobacco side as well as from those on the other side of the debate.

This is not designed to be anything but a check or a balance, if you will, upon that possibility. It's very important, I believe, so that the regulations cannot come from - pardon me for saying this - the bureaucrats pushing hard on some minister.

The Chairman: Let's do the right thing here. This mysterious Liberal won't come forward, notwithstanding the fact that he or she had a good idea. It's just been pointed out to me that the essential difference between the two proposals is that the information in the case of the one on page 61 will be laid before both Houses of Parliament, whereas in the Reform amendment it would be laid only before the House of Commons. We have to be cognizant of the fact that we have two Houses.

Suzanne.

[Translation]

Ms Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, it is traditional for such questions to be studied first of all in the House of Commons before being referred to the Senate. Never have we seen a bill from the House of Commons being simultaneously tabled in both Houses. The same procedure applies with respect to regulations tabled in the House of Commons.

Senators are not elected representatives, they are merely professional lobbyists. They do not have the objectivity or the representative nature of members of the House of Commons. If regulations are to be adopted, this must be done by the House of Commons and not the Senate, which is a travesty of democracy.

[English]

The Chairman: I have to go back to Mr. McNaught, because he may have misinterpreted the spirit of my request just now. It wasn't at all to put him on the spot. I was having a bit of fun at his expense, but my request was quite serious.

I was looking for somebody who is deeper into these matters than we are to walk us through these amendments and tell us what they mean, not to take sides on them as such. For example, can he tell us what he interprets from Mr. Hills' amendment?

.2035

Ms Ferguson: Mr. Chairman, we think it is unusual for regulations to be scrutinized by the House. They are subject to a fairly formal regulatory process that involves consultation with all affected parties. They are put to the scrutiny and consideration of ministers in Order in Council, elected representatives. We feel through the consultation process we will be dealing with other federal departments that have an interest in this as well as non-government organizations.

The Chairman: Mr. Dhaliwal.

Mr. Dhaliwal: Mr. Chairman, I believe one of the reasons we have recommendations is they can be dealt with very quickly if there are problems and things to deal with, whereas if you have those regulations put through the House of Commons it may create difficulty. I agree with the intent of my fellow colleague. I see no reason why regulations could not at any time be brought forward for discussion by a committee when you're meeting with staff, but to have all regulations put through the House of Commons.... The very purpose of having regulations is a problem, because it means when they want to make those changes they would have to come back to the House of Commons as a statute. They couldn't change those on their own.

So although I agree with the intent that those regulations need to be reviewed at committee level, and they can be, I don't believe the process to send them before the House of Commons and take them through it as a statute would give the flexibility needed in the fundamental reasons for having regulation as opposed to having a statute. I don't think we should accept this motion, although I have no problem with the intent.

The Chairman: Before I recognize Mr. Volpe, here is an additional piece of information, thanks to Laura. The Liberal amendment on page 61 provides for scrutiny of the regulations by Parliament. The Reform resolution in Mr. Hill's name would require that these regulations be approved by a committee. That's the difference.

Joe Volpe.

Mr. Volpe: First I want to compliment the phantom Bloc and the phantom Liberal who proposed these amendments. Obviously the work shows they are capable of working with the Reform members to come forward with an idea. My colleague Harb Dhaliwal has already indicated where I think most of us would go on this amendment.

This committee, like all committees of the House, especially after the change in the rules, can call for those regulations and examine them, scrutinize them, and make recommendations on them for the deliberation of the House at any time. In my view, what this amendment does is it gives to this committee and to the House an additional piece of legislative work, which is essentially that no regulation will be promulgated, or whatever the word is, be put forward, unless it has the specific approval of the House first. That defeats, in part, the basic principle associated with the rationale behind this legislation, which is to deal with the specifics of issues as they emerge.

I think we've already accepted that in principle what legislation does is it outlines the basis for which regulations shall be developed. As Judy has indicated, there is a specific process that outlines a step-by-step approach that gives all interested parties an opportunity to have input into the regulatory development process, a process that at any stage can be brought back to the attention of the committee.

.2040

I think the intent that the member for Macleod, Dr. Hill, would like to have firmed up with this amendment is already captured by a procedure we have. I guess the question would be whether this committee or the House of Commons should go one step further and assume that every regulation is a piece of legislation in and of and unto itself. On that item we would probably disagree.

[Translation]

Ms Tremblay: I'll interpret Mr. Volpe's sarcasm as a compliment, although this may be rather unusual. I thank him for admitting the Bloc Québécois can work.

Last Thursday I attended a training session entitled ``Managing Knowledge''. The conclusion was that the managers of the future, of the 21st century, will have to learn to set aside their power and rely on the competence and knowledge of experts in order to better manage the public interest.

That being said, I think that we will vote in favour of the Reform Party amendment since it would be most interesting to change the authoritarian government regime we have had until now. Ministers, supported by their officials, sometimes do make mistakes, which happened in the case of the raw milk affair and there is a chance they may make a mistake in the case of tobacco.

It's important for us to remember that there are experts outside this room who can enlighten us when we must make decisions. Our purpose in being here is not to advance our careers or to serve our personal interest, nor is it to fill up our election coffers or accept the point of view and the money of lobbyists for our next campaign; we are here to manage the community's interests.

By submitting regulations to committee scrutiny, we have an opportunity to hear experts who can tell us whether we are going beyond our rights or going too far or too quickly. The bill to regulate the manufacture, sale, labelling and promotion of tobacco products is attempting to change social behaviour and that is not something that can be done in 24 hours. It is to our advantage to obtain the maximum support from citizens, to invite their point of view, to meet them and to explain what we are attempting to achieve.

There is no point in repeating the kind of experience we all had when we were young and our father told us he was doing it for our own good. It's only when we grow up that we understand we were being punished for our own good when we were 3, 5 or 7 years old. I think the same thing is true for citizens: we have to explain things to them, so that they can advance with us and understand the reasons for our actions. There is no need for coercion or imposing the decrees of the Minister and his crack officials. Ministers change but civil servants remain, we've seen that in the case of the Departments of Canadian Heritage and National Defence. It's important for us to involve citizens as much as possible and that is why I support this amendment. It's important for regulations to be examined in committee and set a limit on the Minister's authority to peremptorily impose his point of view.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Hill.

Mr. Hill: Because I detect there is some sympathy for what I'm trying to do here, if we changed the word ``approved'' to ``scrutinized'' there wouldn't be an approval process at the committee level but simply the ability to look at the regulations in a formal sense. I'm really quite sincere about trying to bring this change about. To my mind, it's an improvement of the process.

The Chairman: Let's see. First of all, it's your amendment, so if you want to change it to that....

Mr. Hill: I'd love to. I'll change the word ``approved'', which is in proposed subclause 42.1(3), to ``scrutinized''.

.2045

[Translation]

I don't know what it would be in French.

[English]

The Chairman: On the fourth line of the proposed subclause (3), ``approved'' becomes ``scrutinized'' in the revised amendment.

Help me, somebody.

[Translation]

And in French,

[English]

what's the verb for ``approved''?

[Translation]

Ms Tremblay: In paragraph 42.1(3), we should at least replace the word ``approved'' by ``recommended''.

The Chairman: ``Examiné''?

Ms Tremblay: I don't think that word is quite appropriate since it would mean examined in your office. In my view ``recommended'' would be preferable since it does refer to the committee's power to make recommendations. We know for a fact that if the Minister...

[English]

The Chairman: Excuse me, just be careful what the exercise is here right now. The person speaking said in English that he wanted to submit the word ``scrutinized''. We're not looking for the best possible alternative in French. We're looking for the best translation of what he wants in French. What he wants is ``scrutinized''. Will somebody tell us what the French equivalent of that is? Is it examiné?

The revised amendment before you is as it stands except that the word in proposed subclause (3) is changed from ``approved'' to ``scrutinized''.

[Translation]

In the French text the word ` examiné'', will replace ``approuvé''.

[English]

That's the revised amendment. That's what's before us.

I have interveners. Joe Volpe.

Mr. Volpe: At the risk of sounding like somebody who has forgotten the definition of democracy, I must again compliment my colleague for his intent, but this is already captured by the process as I've described it. So I'm not any closer to being able to support that.

I wanted to illustrate for my colleague opposite that what I said does have a real-life example, and it has it in this Parliament. When some of my colleagues from the Bloc joined me in objecting to regulations put forward on cheese, the process was there for input, for scrutiny and for rejection. That happened. It took place and the offending regulation was quickly removed. We didn't even need the committee to do it.

So it isn't just a question of being able to say that someone way off in some ivory tower did something that nobody understood, for which they could never be held accountable. The fact is that the process is there. Things get gazetted once, there's a consultation period, there's a second gazetting, and there has to be a response. That response ultimately is the minister's, and the minister is responsible to each and every one of us in the House and to this committee. I repeat that some of the new rules of the House have given committees like ours even greater authority to initiate some of that scrutiny.

I think the intent of my good colleague across could probably be fashioned differently so that we could accomplish what he intends. Obviously I don't want to interpret what his intention might be, because I can only read what's here, but I think there's some room for incorporating that. But it won't be through this amendment.

The Chairman: Paul Szabo.

Mr. Szabo: Mr. Chairman, a similar issue arose under the health subcommittee dealing with Bill C-7, which after prorogation became Bill C-8. When the subcommittee tabled its report back to the main committee, we also appended certain recommendations, one of which dealt with the same issue - scrutiny of regulations and Order in Council appointments, etc. We asked the committee to have that addressed by reference to the House leader. So that issue is still, as far as I'm concerned, on the itinerary of the health committee as it stands.

.2050

Our decision at the time had to do with the fact that this is an issue that is very broad and generic. It's not applicable simply to this bill but to each and every bill that comes before the House that has regulations appended to it.

As a result, rather than trying to somehow work bill by bill, the better strategy would be to again recommend that the issue being raised here, about whether or not there should be something more than what the committees have the authority to do, would be dealt with in a broader sense outside the scope of the bill.

I am somewhat concerned about trying to fashion something that would fit into the current rules of the House, particularly vis-à-vis the powers of cabinet to approve regulations right now, to the extent that we would even get anywhere near that. I think it would probably be out of order in any event.

On the basis of the comments of my honourable colleague from Eglinton - Lawrence and our experience with Bill C-8, I would have some difficulty supporting a motion that just says we can do what we're already permitted to do under the current rules.

[Translation]

The Chairman: I'll now give the floor to Ms Picard.

Ms Picard: Mr. Chair, if the term ``approved'' is replaced by the word ``scrutinized'', we withdraw our support.

[English]

The Chairman: The amendment before us now is the revised amendment with the word ``scrutinized'' in English and ``examiné'' in French.

Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]

[Translation]

Clause 43 carried

[English]

On clause 44 - Summary offence

Mr. Volpe: I refer everyone to page 66.

The Chairman: You're getting good at this, Joe.

Mr. Volpe: It's experience. I think you'll see there are two items. One is on page 65 and one is on page 66. The one on page 66 is the operative one. It simply gives a specific location for each offence on....

The Chairman: What is he doing?

Mr. Volpe: The English is on page 66. The French is on page 67.

The Chairman: Help me with 65.

Mr. Volpe: Forget it.

The Chairman: Good.

[Translation]

The French version is on page 67.

[English]

The English is on page 66. Are we right? Mr. Volpe has moved the amendment to clause 44.

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Clause 44 as amended agreed to

On clause 45 - Sales to youth, promotions

Mr. Volpe: This amendment is on page 68. Again, it just indicates some of the changes we've made above. It tightens up the section again.

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Clause 45 as amended agreed to

[Translation]

Clauses 46 to 52 inclusive carried

.2055

[English]

On clause 53-Exception need not be pleaded

[Translation]

The Chairman: Suzanne Tremblay.

Ms Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, we're going to hit a snag here. As you can see, reinforcements are slowly arriving and we'll be able to hold out for a long time. We have a timetable that will allow us to extend the session for as long as you are unwilling to understand the unacceptability of subclause 53(2).

Under Canadian and Quebec law, as in any self respecting civilisation, we hold to the presumption of innocence. Clause 53(2) tells us that we are automatically guilty and that it is up to us to prove our innocence. That is completely unacceptable in our legal system or under any existing codes. We are innocent until the Crown has proved our guilt. We are of course asking for the full removal of subclause 53(2) which reads as follows:

(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 is not required, except by way of rebuttal, to prove that it does not operate in favour of the accused, whether or not it is set out in the information or indictment.''

We are calling for the full and absolute withdrawal of these lines from clause 53 since they are completely unacceptable to any self-respecting citizen in our democracy. According to your Prime Minister, we are supposed to be living in the best country in the world. I hope then that in the best country in the world we are at least given the presumption of innocence until the court has proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that we are guilty and we are sanctioned and convicted by a judge; otherwise we are presumed innocent.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. McNaught has indicated that he is prepared to give us an explanation on this one.

Go ahead, sir.

Mr. McNaught: As the committee will recall, I addressed this issue earlier, and I'm pleased to amplify my earlier comments, which were by way of clarification.

First and foremost, with respect, the presumption of innocence, i.e. the charter freedom under paragraph 11(d), is in no way altered or prejudiced by this provision. It in no way diminishes the traditional burden of the Crown in any criminal prosecution to, first, prove the offence, and second, to prove the offence was committed by the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

I respectfully invite your attention to the actual wording in subclause 53(2) in line 2, where it tells us exactly what it is that must be proved, what the burden is:

the burden of proving that an exception, exemption, excuse or qualification prescribed by law operates in favour of the accused

You will note that nowhere is the phrase ``guilt or innocence'' referred to. Innocence is still presumed. This is essentially a procedural provision as reflected in subclause 53(1), which notes that the particular exception, etc., need not be set out in the information or indictment, the formal proceedings by which the prosecution is commenced in court. It is essentially procedural.

.2100

Again, I will respectfully point out that this provision already exists, unchallenged, in the Tobacco Products Control Act, in section 19. It's taken directly, verbatim, from the Criminal Code of Canada under section 794, and is also similarly set out and provided in the existing Food and Drugs Act under section 50.

The charter aspect, which I referred to earlier, has been approved by two courts of appeal in the country: the British Columbia Court of Appeal in the R. v. Daniels case in 1990 and the R. v. Lee's Poultry Ltd. case in the Ontario Court of Appeal in 1985.

Those are my comments, subject to further questions.

The Chairman: Did I hear you say that the actual wording is in the Criminal Code?

Mr. McNaught: Yes, in section 794.

The Chairman: Okay. Pauline.

[Translation]

Ms Picard: Mr. Chair, I'd like to ask the meeting to be suspended so we can consult the legal experts on this clause. The fact that such a provision is already to be found once or twice in certain bills does not mean that it is acceptable. We would like a 10 minute suspension.

[English]

The Chairman: We'll recess for ten minutes.

.2113

.2117

The Chairman: Order, please. We're on the amendment moved by Suzanne Tremblay to clause 53.

Suzanne.

[Translation]

Ms Tremblay: Ms Picard and I have each consulted a lawyer and we came to the same conclusion since we received the same opinion from the two lawyers. It is indeed a reversal of the onus of proof which goes against Canadian common law. The fact that it may already be in another piece of legislation does not justify this...

[English]

The Chairman: We've lost the last....

Okay. I thought we had lost something. You said something about....

[Translation]

Ms Tremblay: It is not in common law...

[English]

The Chairman: I lost translation.

[Translation]

Ms Tremblay: I said that we consulted lawyers and that we came to the same conclusion, namely that this is a case of reverse onus of proof and thus contrary to Canadian common law. At the outset we are considered innocent, we enjoy a presumption of innocence and it is up to the Crown to prove our guilt.

Secondly, it is not because this can't be found in a bill or in other bills because Parliamentarians were trusting, imprudent or lacking in vigilance, that in this particular instance we should sanction what would be a major departure from our legal practice.

Thirdly, the decisions of the Appeal Court, the expert who is present made reference among others to two rulings of the Appeal Court, do not change anything in the matter. These Appeal court rulings remain the decision of two men, or two women, or of one man and one woman but most probably of two men.

If you did happen to have a ruling of the Supreme Court, of a similar purport, I could take the trouble to examine it to look for some enlightenment. But in the absence of such a decision, I think that if these provisions have not yet been challenged, it's because they have not yet given rise to any problems.

.2120

I think that it is important to maintain in our legal system the presumption of innocence for any citizen until the Crown has proved his guilt. So we humbly request you to consider our petition to withdraw clause 53, on page 19, lines 1 to 9.

[English]

The Chairman: Joe Volpe, please.

Mr. Volpe: Lest we spend all of our evening discussing this clause by clause, detail by detail, comma by comma, in emulation of lawyers - whatever their qualifications from whatever law school - I'm going to engage in a little bit of philosophy of life as well.

I think perhaps Madame Tremblay might recognize that many of us are skeptics in this room.

The Chairman: Sir -

[Translation]

Ms Tremblay: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. I ask Mr. Volpe to withdraw his words. He said that we were attempting to play the lawyer. We have never played the lawyer; we consulted lawyers and we have full respect for the lawyers we consulted. I'd like him to withdraw his words. We are doing a serious job here. He has no business attributing motives to us in the work we are doing here.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Volpe, are you speaking to the point of order?

Mr. Volpe: I'm not sure that it requires speaking to. However, since we're going to consult lawyers...Madame Tremblay, you have consulted lawyers. This came forward with the consultation of lawyers. We all have the respect of all of the members around this table and we're operating as legislators. And as legislators, that's what we're addressing.

If we want to go to the business of whether we should be skeptical...and I agree that we should all be very skeptical about everything, because we need to protect ourselves against ourselves and against anybody else who would act in our place.

Now, Madame and all other members around the table, we are right to consult legal opinions through the chair. We have some here. We can put them aside. The decision is ours. We can put aside the decision to go to a higher level. We can denigrate a court of appeal, and yes, we can even decide that we don't want the Supreme Court to have decisions to make that apply to any of us. That's our prerogative as individuals, but I suppose I believe in God, so there has to be one ultimate authority. I have to, at one point, say that the decision shall be mine or his or hers.

In this committee, I guess we want to examine whether any of these items really do impinge on some of the authorities that we want to enjoy as individuals.

I can respect the fact that my colleagues opposite have received legal opinion. I respect that legal opinion, but I don't want to have my legal opinion, or at least the opinions of those who I consult, denigrated by suggestions that they are perhaps somewhat lacking because we have put them aside or because others have accepted them in the past.

We can treat each other with dignity and mutual respect, Mr. Chairman, and we can discuss this on the basis of doing business as legislators to arrive at a wording that will be not only productive but effective, or we can sit here and philosophize. Mr. Chairman, I dare say that in that category I might be able to wax as ineloquent as anyone else.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Volpe: Now, to be productive, I can respect the concern of my colleagues opposite, and given the wording that we have in this particular subclause, I will make a suggestion. I hope some colleagues around this table who have raised a similar question might turn their attention to the appended notes that say, in French, Fardeau de la preuve, and in English, ``Burden of proof on accused''.

I think that subclause wants to capture that there is a burden of proving an exception.

We can say - and I think I speak for some colleagues here, aside from myself - that there is some clarity in rewording that, because we've had the benefit of discussing every single clause as we've gone through this section. Not all members have had that opportunity. Some of the debate has been captured by debates on preceding clauses.

.2125

So I ask members to consider rewording the appended notes for the purposes of clarifying what the intent of this clause might be, and that is, again, I repeat, burden of proving the exception.

I leave to others to come up with the language required to reflect a similar note in the French. Perhaps Mrs. Pégeot, who has been designated the French expert on our panel of experts, would come up with wording that might reflect what I just said in English.

The Chairman: Joe, help me now. Are you suggesting some wording addition in the English version?

Mr. Volpe: In the English version, if you'll take a look at the appended notes along the side of the page, it says ``Burden of proof on accused''. No one's intention is that there is a burden of proof. It's a burden of proving an exception.

As you will recall, Mr. Chairman, earlier on we identified that one of the items in this bill is to indicate there are certain things that are permitted. Everything else is not permitted. So essentially if you have an exception to that, which is permitted, you should indicate what that exception is.

Mr. McNaught: Just as a collateral comment to Mr. Volpe's, Mr. Chair, I referred in my comments to section 50 of the Food and Drugs Act, which has exactly the same provision. The wording Mr. Volpe has proposed corresponds directly to the sub or short title of that section in the Food and Drugs Act. It says ``Burden of proving exception''. So there is precedent for that usage.

The Chairman: So we're all talking about the same language, that item in the margin there, which appears now as ``Burden of proof on accused''.

What do you call that? A section? A subtitle?

Mr. McNaught: A marginal note.

The Chairman: And you are saying that in the other this marginal note read...what?

Mr. McNaught: It says ``Burden of proving exception''.

Mr. Volpe: Mr. Chairman, I might just add to -

The Chairman: Just one second.

The advice I'm given here is that the marginal note is sacrosanct insofar as our dealing with it is concerned. The marginal note is something we're not geared to amend. That boggles my mind, but that's not difficult.

What we can do, the clerk suggests, is flag this to the attention of the drafters. Joe has made a suggestion, but you're saying that's all it can be. Is that correct? We're talking specifically about the marginal note, you understand.

Suzanne Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, you can see that we've clearly understood what this clause is all about. Anyway, the legislator or whoever drew up the bill understood it very well. The margin note says Burden of proof on accused. So the burden of proof is actually on the accused. It's the same thing in French ``fardeau de la preuve''. So the onus of proof is on the accused and that is unacceptable.

The gentleman has just reminded us that the same thing is to be found in clause 50 in the Food and Drugs legislation or whatever. We don't care. It's an error that is contained in that Act and we're not ready to repeat it in this one. In Canada, the burden of proof is not on the accused but on the Crown. That is the fundamental right guaranteed by the Charter. You can't go ahead and pass legislation that is ultra vires under the Charter. If we were to submit that to the Supreme Court tomorrow morning, for once they would be on our side.

.2130

In Canada, the burden of proof is on the Crown. Have we changed countries? Have you left Quebec?

[English]

The Chairman: What I'd like for us to do, because I've heard Suzanne's passionate plea twice and I suspect we may hear it again before the night is out, and maybe we'll hear equally passionate pleas from others, is before we get into the rhetoric too much, at least for my own part, I'd like to understand what I'm dealing with. I partly understand it, but I have a question. I'd like somebody at the other end of the table to explain to me what subclause 53(1) says.

Mr. McNaught: Mr. Chairman, as I indicated earlier, it's a very procedural kind of provision. It complements subclause 53(2)in the sense that while the onus is not on the Crown to prove the exception, exemption or other qualifications specified by law in the same way -

The Chairman: Could I just stop you there? All of us from Atlantic Canada were raised on the Bible, so everything was explained to us in parables. Can you take a specific example instead of talking...?

Mr. McNaught: Yes, I can, Mr. Chairman, if the members of the committee would indulge me by turning to page 4 of the bill and looking at subclause 8(2). Let us assume in this parable that an inspector came upon, at this time of the year, a retailer residing in a foreign land. The retailer may be charged - may be an accusé - with having furnished a tobacco product to a young person in contravention of subclause 8(1). In this information that brings the prosecution before the court, which commences the criminal proceedings, it would not be necessary, pursuant to subclause 53(1), for the Crown to set out in the information anything about the verification of age.

Subclause 8(2) says:

(2) A person shall not be found to have contravened subsection (1) if it is established that the person attempted to verify that the person was at least eighteen years of age

If you look at subclause 53(1), it says:

No exception...

- this being the exception -

...is required to be set out or negatived, as the case may be, in an information or indictment

It's purely a procedural matter. In other words, the Crown can get the offence before the court by alleging the contravening sale -

The Chairman: How is your example an exception? In the one case there's a breach of law and in the other case it's within the law.

Mr. McNaught: The person, the retailer, would ostensibly be alleged to have furnished the tobacco product to a young person in a public place contrary to subclause 8(1) of the bill. It would then be incumbent, if it was applicable, upon the accused person to establish that they made the reasonable effort or due diligence effort that's encompassed by subclause 8(2), namely that they attempted to verify the age by the appropriate documentation.

The Crown must still prove beyond a reasonable doubt and make a case that the person furnished the tobacco product to a young person in a public place. They must at least create - I hate to use a legalistic phrase or a Latin phrase - a prima facie case that calls for a response from the accused. If it was applicable, if such a case was made, the accused would then attempt to establish that they had satisfied subclause 8(2). That's the exception or defence or qualification of law that the Crown doesn't have to put in the indictment. It's available to the accused independent of the Attorney General of Canada.

The Chairman: Yves Rocheleau.

.2135

[Translation]

Mr. Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières): Mr. Chairman, in the legal opinion we asked for before, one aspect drew my attention. the Supreme Court may not have recognized the presumption of innocence in certain cases, but in very specific cases and quite serious cases, Mr. Chairman.

We should remember here that it's a matter of smoking cigarettes and in the name of the fight against cigarette smoking, we'll be trampling one of Canada's fundamental rules of law. I just can't get over it, Mr. Chairman! Either this is intellectual laziness or the officials have again managed to convince the legislator or the minister to put that into the legislation whatever the price may be.

In brief, we're totally disconnected from human reality. We're talking about cigarette smoking. Unless we're now at a point where we want to... Let's prohibit production and let's stop being hypocritical. Let's prohibit the production of cigarettes if things are all that serious. There are limits to laughing at people, Mr. Chairman, and playing around with society's most fundamental values, and this is a society that calls itself developed and democratic.

We're getting ready to accuse children of 16 or 18 who will almost have criminal records that they'll be dragging around the rest of their lives because they smoked a cigarette where a corner store didn't have the sign up in the right place. Is that what we want to prove with this paragraph?

The presumption of innocence is fundamental in our system and we're not allowed to play with it four times a week like we're doing and still pretend to call ourselves Liberals. Mr. Chairman, it's inconceivable and I call my colleagues from the other parties who have voters in their ridings to get a grip and advise their minister that someone, somewhere is not giving him good advice.

[English]

Mr. Szabo: Mr. Chairman, I've listened carefully and I think my first reaction to burden of proof would be exactly as the Bloc has interpreted it, that we're talking about guilt or innocence. However, after listening to the interventions, I wanted to try to draw on other examples, and not necessarily the same language in other legislation.

I thought of the case of the Young Offenders Act, where there is a requirement that the onus be on someone to show why they should not be tried in adult court. They're going to be in adult court unless they can show otherwise. That's not the case, and it's not guilt or innocence. It happens to be an element.

I see some parallel here to the extent that the case in its totality is not whether or not there is a prescribed part of the law. That is one element of a case, but there certainly would be mitigating or aggravating circumstances or other untoward activity beyond which the innocence could be.... They could very well have been technically in violation of the prescribed law, but it may not have been their fault because somebody else did it and they were set up.

So I see this, unfortunately, as a possible greyness. I can understand both sides, but I believe in my heart that we're not talking burden of proof of guilt or innocence. Rather the onus, the first onus or the primary onus, has to be on the person being charged with an offence to justify and make the reference to why they feel the charge is inappropriate. It is not the case in its totality, though, and I think that's the subtle difference.

On that basis, at this point, in the absence of someone else telling me more, I will be opposing the Bloc motion.

[Translation]

Ms Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, words translate ideas. In English as in French I am reading burden of proof on accused and ``fardeau de la preuve qui appartient à l'accusé''. Refer to all the legislation you want, that's not what we're talking about. All examples are incomplete. You can never find an example that will be a perfect illustration and it's even more so in the case of comparisons.

.2140

It's very clear. I don't need my heart. All I need is my reason and my intelligence and just make sure I am not falling asleep when I read what I have in front of me.

(2) In a prosecution for an offence referred to in subsection (1),, the burden of proving...is on the accused...

not on the Crown, but on the accused

the burden of proving...

this means ``beyond reasonable doubt''

...that an exception, exemption, excuse or qualification prescribed by law...

So the burden of proof is being reversed by referring to law, to Canadian law. Something is being referred to that is very specific, Mr. Chairman.

...and the prosecutor is not required...

So the tobacco cop - maybe we should stick a cigarette behind his ear to recognize him - has no obligation except to rebut... This officer will be empowered to harass the accused on the pretext that his proof is not sufficient and demand that the accused prove that everything was done so as not to sell to someone under 16 years of age. If the only requirement is rebuttal of proof, then he'll push the accused to his very limits. He'll ask to prove that the young person's age was asked for, that i.d. was asked for and so on.

It doesn't make any sense, Mr. Chairman. That cannot be accepted. I can't understand how someone as intelligent as Mr. Szabo is not sensitive to what we are saying. Even though it's expressed with passion, it's quite moderate. It's unacceptable. It's not the first time you've done it; you tried it with the gun control legislation. I'm not trying to reach your heart, I'm trying to reach your brain. You're going to be voting with your brain.

We have to stop taking people for what they are not, and we have to stop seeing witches everywhere. You're going to be passing legislation that you won't even be able to enforce, the way you're going now.

How far will you go? You tried with the firearms legislation and you didn't succeed. What kind of rightist society are you preparing for us? Frankly, when I watch you go, I consider that I was right when I left the Liberal Party. I did a good thing when I left that party.

[English]

The Chairman: The question has been called on the Bloc amendment. Shall the amendment carry?

[Translation]

Ms Tremblay: I'm asking for a recorded vote, Mr. Chairman, please.

[English]

The Chairman: You wish a recorded vote?

Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Clause 53 agreed to

On clause 54 - Offence by employee or agent

The Chairman: Mr. Volpe.

Mr. Volpe: This is on pages 71 and 72. This is another one of language.

The Chairman: This is just tidying up the language. You have the motion on 71 and 72.

Mr. Volpe: It involves changing one word.

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Clause 54 as amended agreed to

The Chairman: You're ignoring the one on page 70. You know about it, do you?

Mr. Volpe: Yes.

The Chairman: That's good.

.2145

[Translation]

Clauses 55 to 58 inclusive carried

[English]

On clause 59 - Orders of court

Mr. Martin: Mr. Chairman, I do have an amendment, but it's -

The Chairman: What page, please?

Mr. Martin: Page 73.

The Chairman: With respect, sir, I have to tell you that you do not have an amendment. If you look carefully, what you have is a new clause, which will be introduced after I put the question on this particular one.

Mr. Martin: Okay.

Clause 59 agreed to

The Chairman: Keith Martin.

Mr. Martin: The new clause I'd like to put in, Mr. Chairman, states as follows:

59.1 Where a prohibition order is made against a retailer pursuant to paragraph 59(b), and the order relates to an offence on the premises of the retailer, no person shall, while the order is in force, sell or store a tobacco product on the premises where the offence occurred.

The purpose of this is to prevent a retailer, who has been convicted of an offence already under the act and ordered not to sell tobacco products, from reincorporating under a new name and selling tobacco again from the same location. It's based on a similar provision in the Ontario Tobacco Control Act.

The Chairman: I just want to raise a question with the staff about the import of the word ``person'' here, because certainly that goes to the root of the issue he's trying to address here, doesn't it?

Mr. McNaught: Yes.

The amendment proposed refers to a retailer. Is that correct, Mr. Chair?

Mr. Martin: Yes, it is.

Mr. McNaught: I suppose, if correct, that the chair is perhaps concerned that the criminal court, in imposing some sort of disposition or sentence, may not have jurisdiction to bind a third party who isn't part of the proceedings, nor criminally before the court, as it were.

In other words, I, the retailer, have committed the alleged offence, been proven guilty, am now being sentenced - an order's been made against me. Is it also then open to the court to suggest that Mr. Chair and another member shall not sell over the next stipulated period? Where is the jurisdiction to do that?

Mr. Martin: It's basically about reincorporating under a new name. If I were to be convicted, I could reincorporate under Joe Smith, Inc. and sell tobacco under that name. This would prevent me from doing that.

Mr. McNaught: I apprehend the reason and what you understand lies behind that - that's natural anticipation. Certainly it's been considered by the client, who I believe is sufficiently comfortable with the provision that the order of the court could still be complied with. If something was attempted to be done through the back door that couldn't be done through the front door, it would be caught perhaps under contempt of court or other similar provisions.

The Chairman: To put it differently, Judy or France, without the provision that Mr. Martin proposes, can a person who's been convicted go out and set up shop under another shingle the next day?

A voice: I don't think so. No.

The Chairman: What, in the act, would prevent him from doing that?

Mr. McNaught: It's not a perfect world.

.2150

I can't speculate as to what the Attorney General might advise in such circumstances, Mr. Chair, but with respect, I don't believe it's likely to be black and white, that there is either an order binding a third person not party to the criminal proceedings or not at all.

Mr. Martin: It doesn't relate to the third person -

Mr. McNaught: It's the same person in another guise.

Mr. Martin: That's correct. I just rename my company Acme Sellers.

Mr. McNaught: Again, I can't give a definitive opinion, but I would expect that the sentencing judge would make the order in this instance binding on the person, perhaps not unlike restrictions on the privilege of driving in Canada as a result of an impaired driving conviction. In other words, under whatever guise, you can't get another licence to drive.

The Chairman: That's my question, Chris. Do we need this amendment, this clause, to achieve that, or is it in the act already?

Mr. McNaught: I believe it's in the act already.

The Chairman: Paul.

Mr. Szabo: It sounds like this is either in the act already or it may have to be put in, but I don't think we're going to be able to determine that. I wonder whether the member would agree to withdraw the amendment and determine by reference to make sure we find out and consider putting it in at report stage. If we deal with it now and defeat it, it can't be dealt with again, so I wonder if you might consider simply withdrawing it. Let's find the answer and encourage the member to bring it forward at report stage, if in fact that would be constructive to the bill.

Mr. Martin: If we have to do that, I just want to ask a question of Ms Ferguson or whoever said it is in the act. If it is already prohibited in the act, then I could withdraw it, but if it isn't prohibited in the act, we could follow that course. I would like to know if it is prohibited in the act or not. If it is prohibited in the act, then it's a done deal.

Ms Ferguson: That is my understanding.

Mr. McNaught: Perhaps I could refer the member and the members generally, Mr. Chair, to paragraph 59(a) as presently constituted before you on page 20 of the bill. There, the sentencing judge has the option of:

(a) prohibiting the offender from doing any act or engaging in any activity that is likely to result in the continuation or repetition of the offence;

Without offering a specific opinion, I would suggest that the sentencing court there could amply deal with the situation that's being discussed here. Does my friend see that?

Mr. Martin: Yes, that's fair. I'll withdraw the motion.

The Chairman: Mr. Martin has withdrawn the proposed new clause 59.1. The question now is on clause 60.

Clause 60 agreed to

On clause 61

The Chairman: Joe Volpe.

Mr. Volpe: This is on page 75.

I think all members have a written indication of the reason. It's just to delineate the jurisdiction of the Tobacco Act from the jurisdiction of the Hazardous Products Act. Really what it involves is just adding something on to subsection 61(2).

The Chairman: The question is on the amendment.

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Shall the amended clause 61 carry?

Keith.

Mr. Martin: I have an amendment to clause 61, and it relates to replacing lines 1 to 6 -

The Chairman: What page in the document are you on?

Mr. Martin: Page 74. What it does is replace lines 1 to 6 with the following statement:

Subsection 3(2) of the Hazardous Products Act is repealed.

This clause will remove the exclusion of tobacco from the Hazardous Products Act and would enable future regulations of tobacco under the Hazardous Products Act.

.2155

The Chairman: Keith, I'm not sure whether you were present in the committee this afternoon, but we ran into the same procedural problem. Mr. Volpe's amendment a moment ago, which the committee carried, has tampered with the same wording you want to tamper with, but we can't have two amendments. We ran into that situation today with respect to a Bloc amendment.

Mr. Martin: This does not, I think -

The Chairman: Let me ask Charles Bellemare to explain it a little better.

Mr. Bellemare: Mr. Chairman, the problem is that the committee has adopted the amendment on page 71 that sets out what lines 5 and 6 on page 22 are going to be according to the decision of the committee. Subsequent to that, you can't propose another amendment that would change those lines to something else, unless, as the chairman said, it's by the unanimous consent of the committee.

Mr. Martin: Then, how do we determine -

Mr. Szabo: Ask for unanimous consent.

Mr. Martin: Well, what if we don't get unanimous consent? I'm not going to ask for it until I know I'm going to get it.

The Chairman: Keith, every minute we sit here it gets nearer to Christmas and we get much more mellow. Come on.

Mr. Martin: It's plainly not fair, Mr. Chairman, for one to be chosen over another arbitrarily, which would completely disable me or Mr. Volpe from putting our amendments forward.

As the luck of the draw happens, Mr. Volpe, I caught your eye -

The Chairman: No, no, if I may instruct, there are two ways. One way is to catch the chairman's eye before the other person does. But the other way is even more productive. It's a way we've used several times tonight. While one amendment is on the floor, the attention of the committee is drawn to the other amendment.

There was a case tonight in which we had three amendments. They weren't literally on the floor, but one was on the floor. There were two to which our attention had been drawn, and we eventually chose one of the three.

It's too late now, but had you drawn the attention of the committee while this motion was still on the floor, we could have then made a choice. We're beyond that now, according to Charles. We've done the deed. We've amended the resolution.

Mr. Martin: Well, if that's my only recourse, I'll ask for unanimous consent to address this.

The Chairman: I was afraid of that.

Is there unanimous consent to permit Keith to put down an amendment on an already amended section?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Hearing no objections, Merry Christmas, go ahead.

Mr. Martin: It must be Christmas, Mr. Chairman. I thank my colleagues. This is an act of extraordinary generosity of the season. I'll put it at that. It'll never be expected again.

I don't want to make light of this. This is actually an exceedingly important - perhaps the most important - amendment that I'm putting forward today. It is to ensure that by putting this amendment forward we remove the exclusion of tobacco from the Hazardous Products Act.

That would enable the government to actually have a number of powers to be able to regulate tobacco in a very genuine fashion under the rules and regulations one has to abide by right now. We already have a framework: the Hazardous Products Act, which deals with numerous other products that are hazardous or toxic to people's health.

Tobacco, as we know, is no different from many of those products. In fact it's more lethal and toxic than those products under the Hazardous Products Act.

So I would implore this committee to pass this amendment to enable the government to actually regulate this product in that fashion.

The Chairman: Could I ask somebody from the department to just verbalize this one in terms of its implications or what it means?

Ms Maguire-Wellington: I think the reason why those provisions are here is because it was felt that the proper way to deal with tobacco was under specific legislation, and that the HPA or the Food and Drugs Act were not the proper frameworks to deal with the issue of tobacco. That's why we have specific legislation dealing with tobacco and why amendments 61, 62 and 63 to the bill are there.

Mr. Martin: Why is it not appropriate, Madam, to regulate it under the Hazardous Products Act?

.2200

Ms Pégeot: I'll examine those two things. It either regulates the product to make it safe, or it bans the product. Since tobacco currently cannot be made safe through regulation, and since we don't want to ban the product, the HPA is not an appropriate legislative vehicle for tobacco.

Clause 5 provides the authority to the government to develop regulations in respect of tobacco products - the content, emissions. When science evolves and gives us more information, the intention is to use this power at that point. This power would give us the same kind of flexibility that would be in the Hazardous Products Act.

Mr. Martin: But is it not true that the products regulated under the Hazardous Products Act, by definition, are toxic to human beings and other species, and are regulated because of that? The whole purpose of that act is to regulate these products because they are toxic. If they weren't toxic to humans, they wouldn't be in this act and they wouldn't be regulated.

Ms Pégeot: But they are regulated in order to make them safe.

Mr. Martin: Or merely to try to protect people.

Ms Pégeot: Or to try to protect people.

Mr. Martin: Given that logic, what I'm trying to do here with tobacco is to make it as safe as possible - tobacco not being safe - given the framework that already exists under the Hazardous Products Act.

Ms Pégeot: But we don't currently have the knowledge to do this with tobacco, and that's why we put clause 5 in the legislation. The nature of tobacco products is quite unique. It can't be compared to any other type of product. If you look at the kinds of products that are covered by the Hazardous Products Act, they are mainly consumer-type products like cribs and chemicals. It was felt that because of the specific nature of tobacco, it deserved specific legislation. However, we wanted to have the flexibility to be able to modify the product when science or the marketplace evolves, when we have information that would allow us to make tobacco products safer, and that's what is contained in clause 5 of this legislation.

Mr. Martin: The Hazardous Products Act does give you the avenues to provide for regulations that would govern and try to make tobacco as safe as possible.

The Chairman: All right, the question is on Mr. Martin's amendment.

Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Clause 61 as amended agreed to

Clause 62 agreed to

The Chairman: Before we go on, I do not want to reopen clause 53, but I want to take you back to the marginal note beside subclause 53(2). I think the spirit of our discussion earlier -

[Translation]

Ms Tremblay: The notes in the margin are a proper expression of the contents of the paragraph and should not be changed.

Ms Picard: In French.

Ms Tremblay: In French and in English.

Ms Picard: It's the same thing.

An hon. member: It's the burden of proof.

Ms Tremblay: It's the burden of proof. It isn't for nothing that intelligent people wrote in the margin what the paragraph is all about; it's so we can understand what it's all about. Mr. Chairman, it's out of order to go back on this question.

Mr. Rocheleau: Mr. Chairman, the burden of proof and the presumption of innocence are two key terms, two terms sacred in law. One of them is being raised here, the matter of the burden of proof, and its counterpart is the presumption of innocence. Everything is reversed in this legislation. We must let it go as is and maintain the status quo. We want no further hypocrisy; we've had enough already.

[English]

The Chairman: If I could say what I was going to say, I believe the spirit of our discussion just now was that the marginal note ought to reflect the intent of that paragraph. Under Beauchesne's, section 633, we cannot amend marginal notes, but we can flag the issue. Is there consensus to flag the issue for the drafters that there's a difference of opinion in committee as to whether the marginal note in English reflects the intent of the paragraph?

.2205

Mr. Szabo: Oui.

Clause 63 agreed to

[Translation]

Clauses 64 and 65 carried

[English]

The Chairman: That's the end of the bill, except for clauses 12 and 24, which we stood. We will take them in that order.

On clause 12 - Dispensing device

The Chairman: When we stood clause 12 earlier today, we were on the Bloc amendment on page 11.

Grant and then Antoine.

Mr. Hill: I want to draw the committee's attention to more than one amendment on this clause.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Antoine.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: Mr. Volpe, this amendment makes it possible to provide tobacco products using a vending machine if the latter is of a category coming under the regulations or if it is located in a location coming under the regulations. There used to be a regulation allowing the use of vending machines with a control that could be operated at a distance. However, we do not have the assurance that this will specifically figure in the future regulations, and that's why I would prefer this to be spelled out in this provision of the bill. I would therefore move that in clause 12, the words ``the public does not reasonably have access'' be followed by ``or if it has a control mechanism''.

An hon. member: It won't work.

Mr. Crête: No, it would be prohibited unless there was a control mechanism.

[English]

The Chairman: Joe Volpe.

Mr. Volpe: The answer to that is here we are at about 10:15 p.m., when I normally become pessimistic in life, as per our earlier conversation. I had hoped, Mr. Dubé and Mr. Chairman, that with the clause I drafted earlier on we would capture the essence of his request.

This is something that I drafted prior to your speaking to me a few moments ago. Let me address the English version first.

.2210

In my view, the English version incorporates a word that you had utilized. It addresses in English the specific issue that you suggested in French, in my view. I tried to build on what you said and I came up with the amendment that's there now.

I undertook to offer that up as something for your consideration, because in my estimation, after consultation with people who are more expert with the overall impact, this particular clause, as amended, addresses the issue you raised during debates earlier on in the afternoon.

Is it your view that this doesn't do that?

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: No. I'm quite ready to believe that you will change the regulations to take that matter into account, but we know that ministers change while officials remain. I would rather have this written into the Act rather than into a regulation. From what I am told, the English version of the text - although I'm not an expert in English - seems to get my idea across better. That's not the case in French, however, because you regulate two things through regulation, which are the kind of vending machine and its location.

I will review my arguments. Let me remind you that in Quebec, in the context of the last Act passed to this effect, that mechanism was approved. I provided a copy of a letter to that effect toMr. Volpe and he has it in front of him. It clearly states that the mechanism is accepted. You should also have it because I provided it to you.

Over two years, people spent whatever was necessary and adapted to the provisions of that Act. Are we now going to tell them that we'll be looking at that aspect some time in the future while writing up the regulations? I wouldn't be able to. I would be under the impression that I'm not properly serving the interests of those people who, and I repeat it, don't want to make access to tobacco easier for our young people. We're talking about distributors installed in a bar where, in any case, people under 18 aren't allowed. At least that's the case in Quebec; I don't know if it's different elsewhere. So we're talking about locations reserved for adults. Sometimes these machines are found in restaurants where both adults and young people go, but where an employee has to make the thing work for a client to have access to a tobacco product. It seems to me this mechanism is as reliable as a person. I am conscious that it's possible that a person, even though the machine is behind a bar, can have easier access to it in some other smaller bars in the country, where you have a single waiter serving up the clients. That kind of control mechanism is more reliable than leaving the machine in a location that's not under the surveillance of an employee. So I believe it would be easier to specify it in the Act: ``or if it is provided with a control mechanism''. It would be in the Act and it would be clear.

[English]

Mr. Volpe: Okay, we didn't disagree this afternoon. Here's the only thing we disagreed on. You had a very valid point. You wanted some particular language. I already had some that I was prepared to present, so we agreed on the principle.

What you're telling me now is that you prefer language other than what is here. We took your latest suggestion and did some work on it. The drafters are, as we speak, working on this language.

So if the member will bear with me for a moment, I'm just going to read a variation of what he gave me. It's not because I don't have faith in his French. If you'll allow me, the member made some suggestions. Here's how the French will read.

.2215

I had to go beyond what he said in order to keep within the spirit and intent of the legislation.

So if you'll continue to read, on line 40

[Translation]

in English, after the word ``access'', add:

unless it is provided with a safety mechanism operated for each transaction.

[English]

I'll just say this part in English. It's more restrictive than what I thought my amendment presented. But if that makes the member happier, that's fine.

The English will reflect that French. Perhaps I might be permitted to translate the English. As I say, this is being drafted so the members of the committee can have the written draft in a moment or two. I didn't want them to continue until we had reached some sort of an agreement.

In English, after the word ``access'' on line 41, it would say:

unless the device has a security mechanism that is activated before each transaction.

Is that okay? That is being drafted, and all members will receive a copy in a few moments.

The Chairman: For the guidance of the chair, could I ask a question of my friends in Reform? What's the intention of Reform? Is it still to let your amendments stand?

Mr. Hill: I would seek the guidance of the committee. Because these automatic machines can be available in places like motels, that would not be covered by the clause that talks of

a place where youth cannot normally abide.

so I would like to add

nor young persons reasonably have access

to prevent that problem. I ask the experts here whether or not -

The Chairman: Before you do that, while we have everybody on the same wavelength here, just let me show you what the procedural problem is going to be in a minute.

Assuming that Antoine and Joe can agree to marry up their amendment, get an amendment they're both comfortable with, and if that amendment carries, then procedurally we won't be able to entertain the amendments from Reform because we're back to the same problem we had a minute ago of trying to amend the same section.

That's why I'm introducing this now. If there's some hope of accommodating the idea that Grant has in the one amendment -

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: We could reverse the order of the clauses for the purposes of discussion. We could go to clause 24 and give you a few minutes more. I feel that we might be able to arrive at an agreeable solution. The other members of the committee could look at clause 24, which has not been disposed of yet.

In fact, it will be simple. I would accept an amendment in the spirit of the Reform Party amendment. After the wording you have accepted to put in, I would be ready to say something like: ``of a kind provided for by the regulation'' or ``in an area provided for it'' which would cover all situations.

[English]

Mr. Volpe: Before we go on to ask for other expert opinion, I wanted to give some indication to my colleagues from Reform, Dr. Hill in particular, that in the initial discussions we looked at a safety mechanism, a remote control device.

The wording we're now drafting for the consideration of the committee that appears to resonate with acceptance is one in which there is a security mechanism activated before each transaction.

.2220

While I can understand what Mr. Hill is saying, this in effect refers us to those other sections in the legislation that say you cannot sell to minors. Presumably, you can't activate this before every transaction unless you have made the verification.

We did that deliberately. So if you have a place like, as you say, a hotel or motel where you have youth, then it's a mixed place. You still have the onus as the retailer to verify that you are selling to someone who is legally acceptable.

Mr. Hill: In that case, I'll withdraw my amendment. I'll be satisfied with the Bloc and this new wording.

Mr. Volpe: Thank you.

The Chairman: Now, do we have the new wording?

Mr. Volpe: We're going to need about two or three minutes longer to have it copied for everybody, but if you want to accept it in principle -

Mr. Szabo: I was going to ask the same thing. Say the parties are agreed based on the records and the communication that the wording as proposed by Mr. Volpe and Mr. Dubé should be accepted and that it will be in front of us when it's in front of us.

[Translation]

An hon. member: Yes.

[English]

Mr. Szabo: The committee can have unanimous consent to do this, couldn't it?

The Chairman: You've got one problem: it's called the chairman.

Mr. Szabo: We've known that for some time.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

The Chairman: On page 11, to make this nice and tidy, Antoine, would you withdraw your amendment?

Mr. Dubé: Oui.

The Chairman: All right. Now would you move the amendment in one of the languages?

Mr. Volpe: I'll do it in French. I move that clause 12 be amended by adding after the word ``accès'' in the French version on line 40:

[Translation]

unless it is provided with a safety mechanism operated before each transaction.

Do you want me to repeat? In English,

[English]

on line 41, after the word ``access'' I would add:

unless the device has a security mechanism that is activated before each transaction.

The Chairman: The amendment is adding after the word ``access'' in English:

or where that device has a security mechanism that is activated before each transaction.

[Translation]

In the French version, after the word ``accès'' we add:

à moins qu'il ne soit muni d'un mécanisme de sécurité qui est actionné à chaque transaction.

[English]

The question is on the amendment. Shall the amendment to clause 12 carry?

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Clause 12 as amended agreed to

The Chairman: Now, folks, we still have two bits of work to do. May I remind you what these two bits are. One is called clause 24 and the other is Bill C-24. I remind you that when we're finished clause 24 and then the other nominal votes here, we have to do Bill C-24.

Has it been circulated?

A voice: Not yet.

The Chairman: Bill C-24 will be circulated to you shortly. It only has three or four clauses in it, but I'll just draw your attention to it.

On clause 24 - Sponsorship promotion

The Chairman: As for clause 24, you'll remember that we had accepted an amendment from Joe Volpe. Can somebody remind us where that amendment is in the document?

.2225

I'm referring to page 41. I'll just remind you so that we know what we're dealing with here. We're dealing with clause 24 as amended by the amendment on page 41 of the document.

Pauline.

[Translation]

Ms Picard: You told us to go ahead with a debate, Mr. Chairman. I for one have things to say. I've been talking about sponsorship for two days and I would like to apprize you anew of my comments.

All artistic or cultural events are included in clause 24. No distinction is made as to the audiences targeted by the events. Which means that the events targeting a younger audience are submitted to the same regulations as the events targeting an older audience. As a distinction was established for magazines, why not have done the same thing for cultural or sporting events?

Concerning sponsorships, positions are extremely divergent and there is a lot of data. The cultural community does not at all like any proposals to limit sponsorships because it would be losing an important source of revenues in a context of government budget cuts.

In the series of events that are funded this way, we could point out the Just for Laughs Festival, the Montreal and Trois-Rivières Grand Prix, the Toronto Film Festival, the Montreal Jazz Festival, the Benson & Hedges Internationals, the Players International Tennis Tournament and many other sporting and cultural events.

According to the Tobacco Products Manufacturers Council, art event sponsorships are worth about $25 million whereas around $35 million are used to sponsor sporting events which gives a total of $60 million in Canada, $30 million of which are spent in Quebec.

Minister Dingwall questions these figures and indicates that a low percentage of sponsorship for many events comes from tobacco companies. However, he is unable to say exactly how much money is put into these sponsorships and, besides, he forgets to mention that the percentage of funding for some events is far higher.

As an example, I will give you figures: for the Jazz Festival, with a $9.5 million budget, $1.5 million come from sponsorships, which is 15.8%; for fireworks, on a total of $1.4 million, $1 million come from sponsorships which represent 71.4%; for the Just for Laughs Festival, out of $10 million, $1 million, or 10%; for the Quebec Summer Festival, of $4.5 million, 500 000 $ are from sponsorships, which is 11%.

For the Montreal area alone, the economic benefits of four festivals which are the Jazz Festival, the Just for Laughs Festival, the World Films Festival and the Francofolies are estimated to be $166 million. The number of permanent jobs is estimated to be 3 624, 2 878 of them in the Metropolitan Montreal area and 746 others in the rest of Quebec.

In an answer to the document Tobacco Control, the Canadian Conference of the Arts has indicated that the proportion of young smokers between the ages of 15 and 19 dropped from 29% to 26% between 1994 and 1995 and that there is a decrease in the number of smokers in the general population.

There is no consensus on the influence the visibility of the sponsors' trademarks may have during cultural or sporting events in increasing the use of tobacco. On that, we should remember that the Minister stated last December 6 that within three years, there would be approximately 1.5 million fewer smokers, which is a decrease of anywhere from 15% to 22% thanks to his legislation. One can wonder on what calculations he based his estimates.

Two polls confirm that the majority of people do not want sporting and cultural events to be affected by the legislation. More particularly, a poll appearing in La Presse on December 6 last, indicates that 81% of the respondents think that the measures contained in the Act will not prevent young people from smoking and 68% are against prohibiting sponsorships.

.2230

Even though the bill, as the Minister of Health often says, does not prohibit sponsorships, there is a strong risk of it eliminating tobacco sponsorships.

The other poll was done in September 1996 by Insight Canada Research. It shows that 66% of Canadians agree that tobacco companies should have the right to sponsor events and organizations in the arts, sports, entertainment and fashion. Eighty-four percent of respondents believe that a company which was legally in business should have the right to sponsor events.

Moreover, 83% of respondents felt that sponsored organizations should be responsible for deciding whether or not sponsorship should be allowed.

On the other side of the coin, arguments in favour of supporting restrictions on sponsorships focus particularly on young people, and particularly on the fact that they are more vulnerable and easily influenced than other members of society. The usual arguments are reiterated as well, and statistics are given - 40,000 deaths a year are associated with smoking. Since more smokers started during their teens, we are particularly concerned about protecting teenagers. Thirty per cent of all cancers are associated with smoking.

That's all I have to say for this section.

Mr. Rocheleau: Mr. Chairman, it is as a member of Parliament for Trois-Rivières that I thought it my duty to put my version of the facts before the Standing Committee on Health, which is currently studying the anti-tobacco bill.

Mr. Chairman, for many years Trois-Rivières has hosted a major automobile racing event, currently called the Players Grand Prix. Each year, and every year, the Players Grand Prix generates some 150 jobs, of which about 80 are regular, permanent and direct jobs. Economic spin-offs are on the order of $8 to $10 million each year.

The Players Grand Prix therefore has a significant impact on the economy of Trois-Rivières, and in fact, on the economy of the region as a whole. It is also a high-profile international event, in which racing drivers from all over the world participate, and which is broadcast throughout North America, and even beyond.

Mr. Chairman, the legislation in its current form represents a serious threat to the Players Grand Prix. The legislation is even more surprising, Mr. Chairman, in the light of the fact pointed out by my colleague, the member for Drummond - it seems that no study has demonstrated that advertising associated with artistic, cultural and sporting events boost actual smoking. It might perhaps encourage people who already smoke to change their brand. This means its impact would be completely marginal.

I also do not believe that this legislation is in the public interest. This sort of advertising is carried out in the private sector, and is an aspect of healthy competition among companies that decide to allocate a certain number of millions of dollars for specific activities and their marketing policy. This means the advertising has no impact on consumption, and that is what we should be focusing on as consumers.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to consider the extremely negative impact which this legislation, in its current form, would have from a socioeconomic - and particularly social - perspective, given the high unemployment rate across Canada. I don't think we can afford these fantasies.

I would encourage my colleagues to draw inspiration from the Australian model. European countries have been studied, and it seems they have the infrastructure needed to support such events without sponsors. This is because major families specializing in car racing are always there to provide massive support.

.2235

Now let's look at the Australian model. Australia has anti-tobacco legislation, but has not lost sight of practical issues or common sense. International events are in a category of their own, and this prevent the legislation for having a negative impact on the Australian economy. Why couldn't we do the same thing in Canada and Quebec? Why couldn't we use our judgement, why couldn't we be practical, and why can't we determine and solve our problems, while defining some circumstances or events as special?

So I hope, Mr. Chairman, that my colleagues will help convince the government - and primarily the minister - to apply some common sense in the development of this legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dhaliwal): Thank you very much.

Ms Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, I have read clause 24 quite a few times, and tried to understand exactly what the government was getting at. I felt I must have missed a few things during the explanations and briefings, because I don't really see how, with the 21st century just around the corner, a bunch of people in their forties on the average who are supposed to have some experience don't understand that coercion has never achieved anything.

As soon as something is prohibited, it becomes extremely attractive. But if you take a liberal approach, then everyone becomes blasé, and nobody tries to do things under the table, illegally, or with the help of adults whose intentions are not always good.

As far as I know, no parents who wanted to prevent their sons from reading Playboy ever succeeded. I never saw a single father or mother who actually succeeded in stopping their teenager from looking at Playboy if he wanted to. As we saw, not even the army was immune - they had Playgirl, in super-secret, highly controlled areas. When a person wants to indulge in some kind of vice, there is no law on earth that can stop him or her.

And as for the pleasures of life, like smoking, I really don't see what the government is trying to achieve. I myself am an ex-smoker. In 1986, I decided to give myself a birthday present. That was on January 24, 11 years ago, and I haven't smoked since that day. But I'll tell you this - you're really tempting me to start again, if only because you're trying to stop me and I want to see how the police could arrest me for doing it. In any case, it was my own decision 11 years ago to give myself this gift and stop smoking.

And what made me stop smoking? Well, no one asked me to. No one ever asked me to stop smoking. I just realized that I had to stop. I've spent 35 years of my life involved in educating pre-school age children, and I know that it's through education, not coercion, that you get things done.

Here is a bit of your wonderful clause 24:

...in a promotion that is used in a sponsorship of a person, entity, event, activity or permanent facility if the person, entity, event, activity or facility

a) is associated with young persons...

You do know that, several years ago, Quebec prohibited all television advertising aimed at young people. That was ages ago.

Advertising aimed at young people was prohibited at least 20 years ago, because toy manufacturers would use children's programs to get at the kids, so that the kids would bug their parents to buy them the manufacturer's toys for Christmas. And the advertising was deceptive - a kid would think that he'd be getting a big truck about three feet long and five feet high, because of the way the ad was shot, and he'd really be disappointed when he got something that was three inches long and five inches high.

.2240

So in Quebec, we prohibited that advertising on television during children's programming. This also encouraged children to watch quality programs.

And on that point, I'd like to congratulate Radio-Canada, Radio-Québec and TVOntario, which has always produced and continues to produce quality programming for children. Unfortunately, private stations who needed the advertising to survive gave up children's programming because it didn't pay. That's life - virtue is not always rewarded.

So in (a), we have a reference to activities associated with young persons, which ``could be construed on reasonable grounds to be appealing to young persons or if young persons are its primary beneficiaries''.

What surprises me is this: unit sales of cigarettes to children have been prohibited for a long time. But all convenience stores sell cigarettes under the table, in almost all parts of Canada. Store owners open a pack and sell the cigarettes one by one, because it's very profitable. They sell them that way to kids. The police knows about it and tolerates it. Everybody knows about it, and tolerates it. When you leave here today, I challenge you to keep an eye out at the first five convenience stores you come across. I'm sure that, among those five, you'll find at least one who does this because it pays. But it's against the law - yet no one seems to have found a way of stopping it.

Subsection (b) says:

(b) is associated with a way of life or an aspect of living, including glamour, recreation, excitement, vitality, risk or daring.

I see there are some amendments to this. I think you could have added: ``etc.'' to the end of that list because I really don't know what you're getting at.

I don't understand how smoking is a prestige activity. And as for recreation, there are many people who have nothing to do, who don't have a job, who live on welfare and who have nothing else to do but smoke, watch TV and drink beer. In any case, the prime minister said that's all the unemployed are good for. And as for excitement, I suppose smoking can give you guts. And as for vitality, I don't think I need to smoke to have vitality.

The risk is getting cancer. We all know that's the risk. As far as I am concerned, I think the Minister of Health could have taken another approach rather than controlling smoking, he could have people who voluntarily decide to smoke to sign a statement in which they voluntarily renounce health care since they are embracing the path to disease. I believe this approach is under consideration in the U.K. I think we should make people assume responsibility for their own actions, not load them down with guilt. But it seems our government is leaning to the right. It may call itself liberal, but its approach is founded on guilt, punishment and criminalization. If we could just lock everyone up, there would be fewer jobs to create and lower unemployment figures.

Let's go on with clause 24:

(2) A person may display a tobacco product-brand element only within the bottom ten per cent of the display surface of any promotional material.

In the French version, the phrase ``tout au bas du matériel de promotion'' is a bit awkward, and should be reworked.

The police is going to need some really good measuring instruments. Who's going to pay out if, by some chance, that 10 per cent threshold is exceeded a bit, say it's 10.1 per cent? Is that going to be illegal? Will clause 53 be applied to demonstrate beyond any doubt that the person in question did everything he could not to exceed the 10 per cent threshold? In any case, we don't even know what the regulations are, or to what 10 per cent actually corresponds.

.2245

When Charles de Gaulle came to Quebec for the opening of Expo 67, the King's Highway was painted. It was advertised and the ``fleur de lys'' had been painted on the roadway every kilometre. Now with a bit of help from du Maurier, you might well ask whether you are exceeding the 10 per cent threshold. Where does the poster begin, and where does it end? That's the question we have to ask.

And here is more:

(3) A person may use promotional material that conforms with subsection (2) and that displays tobacco-brand elements

a) in a publication that is provided by mail and addressed to an adult who is identified by name;

I should just point out that all magazines we subscribe to arrive without envelopes. They are addressed to us by name. Does this mean that such magazines as Newsweek, Maclean's, L'Actualité, Business Week, or any other publications currently available in Canada could no longer accept tobacco advertising because a child could see it when picking up the mail for his parents? In flipping through the glossy pages, he might accidently come across an ad for Rothmans, du Maurier, Craven A, Belvedere or Buckinghams. Well, that brand isn't around any more. Can you imagine? The first cigarettes I smoked were Buckinghams.

There is a real problem here. There is no way of controlling this kind of mail, even when it is addressed to an adult, because no magazines are mailed in envelopes. This means that children will be automatically exposed to them.

And another thing - how are you going to deal with publications that are read primarily, but not exclusively by adults? Some people actually subscribe to magazines, but others just pick up an issue at the news stand because they're taking a plane or a train, or because they're going to the washroom and want something to read. You can never control that. It's ridiculous.

And take a look at the promotional ad on programs handed out or on posters displayed at the site of the event, cultural activity or facility. Here is d):

d) in signs in a place where young persons are not permitted by law.

That means no more cigarette advertising in metro stations, on the trains or buses. Take a look at the buses in the street. They're carrying advertising! They could be carrying cigarette advertising.

I don't understand what kind of society you want to live in. I'll tell you quite frankly that, right here, we've got something to promote Quebec's, our country, sovereignty. This is enough. There are some good clauses that will be widely publicized. But it does not make sense - it shows that the people of Canada are losing sight of their fundamental values of liberty, of openness and tolerance. The country Canada is becoming will not be such a great place to live in, because we will lose our natural environment - advertising.

Advertising is all over the place. Do we need to get the Italians to do it for us? Their advertising is sensational. Perhaps we shouldn't show packs of cigarettes on our ads. Perhaps we should show bare buttocks instead. Maybe people would rather see that.

Mr. Dubé: I think Mrs. Tremblay is finished.

.2250

We have discussed the issue a number of times, but I believe this is our last shot doing clause by clause consideration. I would like to point out that the Official Opposition voted for the objectives of this legislation and supports this bill.

There is one provision we announced at the outset, and I was supposed to deliver the speech in the House at first reading. We objected to the sponsorship aspect. Personally, I have fewer reservations about sponsorship than about advertising, because advertising...

Mrs. Tremblay: It is sponsorship.

Mr. Dubé: Well, with respect to advertising aimed at adults and the decision of the Supreme Court, I think the Minister realized he couldn't go any further. He would have liked to, but I believe he realized he couldn't. In a five to four decision, the Supreme Court ruled that a supplier could not be prevented from communicating with his clients in writing. So we don't need to debate the issue any longer.

And as for the sponsorship issue, you can see from the statement made by my colleagues,Ms Picard, Ms Tremblay, Mr. Rocheleau and others that we are making a final attempt - here at the clause by clause stage - to explain that we must vote against this bill because there is a very great risk that tobacco companies will cease to sponsor cultural and sporting events. This would lead to all the economic repercussions outlined by Ms Picard.

We will probably not have time to pass the bill at third reading before the holidays. This means we have some time. I would therefore urge my colleagues once more to consider some changes for report stage. Once we get to third reading, it's just yeas or nays. Since we are now working on amendments for report stage, I'd rather tell you that we won't support you on this, even if all members of the Bloc Québécois are in favour of the general objectives of the bill. We will not support the sponsorship issue because it will have massive repercussions on cultural and sporting activities.

We are being upfront about this, we are not being hypocritical. We are not trying to curry favours with anyone, and we are not supporting tobacco companies. Let me point out that I do not smoke, I have never smoked and I have no relatives or friends in the tobacco industry. We do subscribe to health objectives but as Suzanne Tremblay and Pauline Picard pointed out, these are not outlined in the bill. It may make things difficult, but we must have awareness and education programs for the public. We can never say that enough. Thank you.

Ms Tremblay: I have something to add, Mr. Chairman. Last summer, I had the good fortune of taking a holiday in your wonderful province - I went to St. John's Newfoundland - during a street festival. One of my colleagues was there as well, with her eleven-year-old son. To our great surprise, we were not given access to the festival site, because my colleague's son was only 11 and as far as I understand - alcoholic drinks were sold on the site. If he had not been with us, we could have gone in.

So there are ways of keeping young people away from some areas without prohibiting sponsorship. I think organizations can regulate themselves, and I think we can count on people to have some common sense. But I am absolutely convinced that you will not achieve anything with coercion. Our priority is to prevent young people from starting to smoke. That's the number one goal. But to do that, we have to prevent convenience stores from selling cigarettes one by one, we have to prohibit vending machines in schools, and we have to prevent people from selling cigarettes to kids in school. That's what we have to do.

.2255

And there is something else I'm very concerned about. You are regulating tobacco, but there is a much more serious problem among elementary-school children in Canada right now: drugs. While we are worrying about tobacco, pushers are going into our schools and starting our kids on drugs, because they know the kids won't have access to cigarettes any more. I'm talking about eight- and nine-year-odds. We've got pushers in our elementary school yards, and we've got pushers selling drugs to young people in shopping malls. It's all over the place.

So we're wasting a lot of time with these coercive measures, when what we should be trying to do is educate young people and change our political approach. We're always trying to regulate things, when what we should be doing is asking parents to monitor their kids, to be responsible for their kids, and to ask schools to fulfil their roles as educators. We want society to provide some supervision for young people and activities. We'd be much better off subsidizing them so that they could have activities, like we did when we were young, so that kids and teenagers could get together in all kinds of organizations. We'd be much better off doing that than trying to catch them on street corners and turning them into criminals.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Suzanne. The one thing you forgot to say is who your tour adviser was on your Newfoundland trip.

Grant Hill, please.

Mr. Hill: I just wondered, Mr. Chairman, since the Bloc members each took about 20 minutes, if I could give the committee a present by taking none of that and calling for the question.

Clause 24 as amended agreed to

Mr. Volpe: I have a point of order. I just wondered whether l'Académie française has a translation for the word ``pushers'', because I was following everything, and in French there's only one word I couldn't understand. Knowing that my colleague opposite is a great lover of purity, I wanted to know whether there was agreement in l'Académie française to employ a dastardly Anglicism like ``pushers'' to convey something that had actually nothing to do with this bill.

The Chairman: Like most things, people from Toronto say ``That went right over my head.''

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: I'm not going to make a big deal out of this, but I think it would make more sense to call this the ``Tobacco Control Act''. Keeping the bill's current title, the ``Tobacco Act'' may imply the legislation is also aimed at tobacco producers. But manufactured products are not mentioned anywhere in the bill. Since the government's objective is actually to control tobacco, than why can't we call the bill the ``Tobacco Control Act''. That would make more sense. I'm not going to harp on this, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to put this forward once. If my colleagues don't agree with the notion, then it's too bad.

Ms Tremblay: They'll vote against it anyway.

[English]

The Chairman: France, you look like you are itching to say something.

[Translation]

Ms Pégeot: I just want to explain why the title ``Tobacco Act'' was proposed. There are already some provincial tobacco control acts, including the Ontario Tobacco Control Act. We wanted there to be a clear distinction between our legislation and other tobacco legislation, so as to avoid confusion.

.2300

Furthermore, the bill is in four parts, each of which deals with different considerations. We therefore felt that a short title would be sufficient to render the idea of the bill.

[English]

The Chairman: Are we ready for the question?

Clause 1 agreed to

The Chairman: Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Shall the bill as amended carry?

Bill C-71 as amended agreed to: yeas 8; nays 2

The Chairman: Shall the committee order a reprint for use at report stage? This is necessitated by the fact that the bill has been amended.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Shall I report the bill as amended to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

In a moment we're going to go to Bill C-24. Before doing so, now that the bill has carried, let me very quickly and very briefly take off my hat as chairman and say to you as colleagues in the committee that I personally have a concern with the sponsorship issue.

My own preference is that I felt the sponsorships ought to have been banned altogether, with some provision for alternate funding or compensation. That wasn't done. I'm of the view, as one individual, that in the short term we may be creating a problem. There are events already in the planning stages and I have some concerns about that.

Were I not the chairman, I would move a motion and I would see if there's some agreement around the table on the following idea. I would like us as a committee to recommend that the government consider a phase-in period for the provisions insofar as sponsorships are concerned. If I had a mover, we could debate that.

Mr. Dhaliwal: So moved.

The Chairman: It is moved. The motion is that the committee recommends that the government consider a phase-in period for the provisions on sponsorship as provided in Bill C-71.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: You see the gradual application of the transition period as one possibility. In the same vein, would you support a recommendation for measures whereby a government could provide some compensation? Even if implementation is gradual, the first real shock will be felt next summer. Next summer is going to be a very difficult time, I would agree with this notion, in so far as...

Ms Tremblay: Not necessarily next summer. The Senate has not yet voted on the issue.

Mr. Dubé: Since we are recommending compensation measures...

Ms Tremblay: That could be blocked by the Senate.

.2305

[English]

The Chairman: Let's be clear on what we're doing here now. First of all, we're trying to avoid being here all night, I hope. Secondly, we have passed the bill and I've just done something that may be just a bit unorthodox, certainly as chairman. By opening my mouth, I prolonged the session, I hope not unduly because we have to tutor ourselves on those issues. I just raised an issue that I know other members of the committee and I have some concerns about.

In a spirit of goodwill, I would suggest that if there are a couple of ideas out there and you want to test the committee on them, let's do so. The one I put forward is now a motion and we're going to deal with that in a moment, but Antoine has also put one forward.

In fairness to each other, I don't think we need a great long debate on it. Either we have the consensus of the committee on a particular issue or we don't. We've heard from a lot of witnesses and we've heard each other a lot, so given that it's after 11 p.m., we shouldn't cut anybody off. We've worked together well on this, and I thank you for that, but I don't think we should put each other through a long debate on this. If there's an idea you want to test the will of the committee on, get ready and put it into a motion and we'll put it to a vote. Is that an agreeable way to proceed?

Joe.

Mr. Volpe: It may be an agreeable way for some members to consider, but perhaps we could all put on another hat right now. I think what all members around the table have been attempting to do over the course of the debate on this bill is to impress upon the government a particular view that each and every one of them felt ought to be taken into consideration as this bill goes to the next stage.

Having passed this bill with all of those considerations already, I think it almost makes it unnecessary for us to consider this even further. I'll put on that other hat for a moment and suggest that it is not necessary to go into formal motions since the parliamentary secretary and all of the officials from government at this stage of the game have heard all of those considerations.

It is my practice to always consider all presentations made seriously for advancement to the next stage. There are several members around the table who have already, either openly or in private, said that such items must be addressed in a particular fashion. I would like us to find a way to do that and to do it in a way that can be acceptable. Obviously some of those items would have been ruled out of order, given the debates we were having under strict, narrow discussions.

I don't know if it is your intention or the mover's intention to draw the attention of someone who is supposed to represent the government side on this, but that attention has already been attracted and the message received. I would say to any such members, who have a specific item that they would like to draw again to the attention of the government and who want to impress upon the minister in particular that such issues be dealt with in a very serious fashion, that this has already been done. I undertook to do that with the several members who have already spoken to me and who have said it here publicly. I approached them and said yes, that's something that's worthwhile.

If you think you want to go even beyond that, tell me what the mechanism will be when you report this bill to Parliament.

The Chairman: Charles needs a couple of minutes to find a citation, so we stand recessed for five minutes.

.2310

.2327

The Chairman: Order, please. In a moment we're going to go on to consideration of Bill C-24. Before doing so, let's just deal with the issue I raised more as an individual than as chairman of the committee.

As I told you, I feel personally and strongly about the issue of phase-in. However, having had representation from most of the members, I think that probably what we ought to do is just leave this over.

The Bloc in particular has wanted to consult with its caucus. So I think we should leave the matter of the possible recommendation from the committee, insofar as a sponsor is concerned, until our next meeting. That is going to be on Thursday anyway.

I'd feel very differently if it was post-Christmas, but we have left it for a meeting Thursday morning, and that will give the Bloc the opportunity it had requested.

Keith.

Mr. Martin: If you're going to be putting forth motions or suggestions from the committee, I'd like to put forth a motion.

Mr. Volpe: On Thursday.

Mr. Martin: On Thursday, but we're putting it now for consideration on Thursday.

The Chairman: Let me say what I just said in another way. If people have suggestions on this issue, then just hold your fire until Thursday, if you don't mind. That's basically what we're saying. Is that fair enough?

Suzanne.

[Translation]

Ms Tremblay: How can caucus be consulted if we only get the motion on Thursday?

[English]

The Chairman: I probably created a bit of a problem for you by raising the issue in the first place. We're basically sitting as a legislative committee tonight. I don't mind a little licence, but we shouldn't have several hours of licence.

So if there are general ideas about compensation.... I don't mind hearing from Keith about the general idea, but I don't want to take very much time to debate it. If he has an idea he wants to throw out, and then, as Suzanne suggests, we can all think about it, and be ready to vote on it Thursday, that's a fair way to proceed.

I wouldn't want to raise anybody's hopes that we're in for another marathon debate. I'm saying that first, we have an agenda on Thursday insofar as child health is concerned. But if we can test the idea with the committee on Thursday, whether it's on phase-in, compensation, or whatever, I think we serve ourselves well. But let's not get our hopes up that we're going to have a great, long debate on this.

Keith.

Mr. Martin: Well, out of consideration to my colleagues in the Bloc Québecois, I'll just put the motion out for their consideration.

The motion is that the Government of Canada raise the tobacco taxes back to where they were as of January 1, 1994.

That will be the motion I will put forth on Thursday.

.2330

The Chairman: Okay. Now, could we go to Bill C-24. Before we get into clause-by-clause, could I ask somebody at the other end of the table just to relate this bill, which has been with us for several months and has now been overtaken by C-71, to C-71?

France.

[Translation]

Ms Pégeot: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Essentially, all provisions in Bill C-24 are contained in Bill C-71. Specifically, provisions in subclauses 9(1)a)(i) and (ii) of Bill C-24 are contained in subclause 15(1) in part III of C-71, entitled ``Labelling''. In subclause 9(1)b)(i) and (ii) of Bill C-24 are contained in subclause 15(2) of C-71, while those in subclause 17f) and g) Bill C-24 constitute clause 17 of C-71.

The words may be a little different, but the content is the same. In bill C-71, the language was simplified so that the bill would be clearer. That's all.

[English]

The Chairman: Are you saying that the provisions of C-24 are in C-71?

Ms Pégeot: Yes.

The Chairman: Is there anything additional in C-24 that is not covered in C-71?

Ms Pégeot: No.

The Chairman: In that case, folks, I would suggest we do a pro forma approval of the clauses, with the understanding that we're just really doing housekeeping. The bill is before us.

What happens to the bill once it becomes an act? Does it stay in force, does it get repealed, or what?

Ms Pégeot: Are you talking about C-24 or C-71?

The Chairman: Bill C-24.

Ms Pégeot: Well, once C-71 becomes enforced, C-24 is not necessary.

The Chairman: Okay, so you understand that all we're doing is really pro forma at this point.

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to

The Chairman: Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed

The Chairman: Shall the bill carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Shall I report the bill to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: It has been carried in any case. There's no problem.

[English]

The Chairman: I guess we just set a record for passing a bill in committee.

Before finishing, let me just thank the many people who have helped us here. It's unfair to single out people, so I'll resist that temptation, by and large.

I will express my thanks, however, to the clerk, the man who has been cracking the whip here, and through him, to everybody else, and the people from the department. I would also like to thank, of course, all the witnesses who have come forward during the past several days.

Thanks, everybody. It's been an impressive effort. I was particularly impressed on the weekend by all the things that got done in terms of streamlining the requests from witnesses, the scheduling, and so on. So for all these and other functions you perform so well, and to the committee for your indulgence, thank you very much. We stand adjourned.

Return to Committee Home Page