HEAL Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON HEALTH

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA SANTÉ

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, October 29, 1998

• 0906

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.)): Colleagues, we can convene. We'll begin post-haste.

As you know, this morning we're going to begin our deliberations on Bill C-42, amendments to the Tobacco Act. There are essentially two, but we've agreed that we want to hear from all of the interested parties who have observations they wish to make and suggestions they wish to propose to us.

We've divided them up into three panels. Our first one should have started about five minutes ago, with the Canadian Cancer Society and Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada.

We'll introduce everybody in a moment, but I'd like to begin with Madam Caplan's opening statement. I think she is anxious to let presenters know the government's stand on some of these issues. I'll give you no more than five minutes.

Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Thank you very much.

The Chair: We'll begin there and I'll cut you off at exactly five minutes, Madam.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I am pleased to be here today on behalf of the Minister of Health as we begin the review of Bill C-42. The bill of course amends the Tobacco Act, and as many of the members of the committee know, we took part in the second reading debate, so I am going to keep my opening remarks brief.

I want to reiterate the government's view that Bill C-42 will toughen the Tobacco Act that Parliament passed. It will be another step forward in our work to control a substance that is at the root of about 40,000 early deaths each year in Canada. It will be consistent with our place among international leaders in controlling tobacco promotion.

As most of you know, the bill's primary focus is a five-year timetable to end the marketing of tobacco products through event sponsorships. We propose to do this through a transitional process. Events that were in place with tobacco sponsorships prior to April 25, 1997, would have two-year period without new sponsorship restrictions, but only during that time.

During the following three years, we want to tighten the limit significantly. The on-site promotion of tobacco sponsorship would be able to continue, but off-site promotions would have to meet the 90/10 rules of the current Tobacco Act. We would place stringent conditions on those off-site promotions to limit the exposure of young people to this marketing.

In five years, there would be no more promotions of tobacco sponsorships. Event names and facilities would no longer serve as a none-too-subtle reminder of tobacco.

This bill came after substantial discussion with all interested parties. We heard from the arts, sports, and other groups who would be affected by these changes. They indicated that they needed appropriate timeframes to line up new sponsors, and our bill recognizes that.

We also heard from the health community. Those organizations have been front and centre in the work to make Canada tobacco-free. In particular, I'd like to mention the work of the Canadian Cancer Society, Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada and the Non-Smokers' Rights Association in this broader effort. They have been leaders in the action over time to get the anti-smoking message out to Canadians. They have been powerful forces in encouraging Canadians to keep moving ahead on the tobacco issue.

Health organizations looked at what we were doing with this bill. They understand where we want to go and how we want to get there. I believe they support the direction that we're taking in C-42 toward a prohibition of tobacco sponsorship promotions. Still, we know they had concerns.

They understand that the tobacco industry has constantly sought out new ways to market its product as we have closed off the old channels by laws such as this one. For example, tobacco companies by begun to use the Internet to support events marketing in Canada, something that many could not have foreseen just three or four years ago.

• 0910

With that in mind, the Canadian Cancer Society identified amendments that it wanted to see in this bill. And during second reading debate, I know that some opposition members indicated their support for those amendments.

Today, I am announcing on behalf of the government that we are prepared to amend this bill to address three of those proposals.

First, we will propose that October 1, 1998, be specifically identified as the start date for the transition under this bill. In effect, that means the five-year clock has already begun to tick down on sponsorship promotion—if this amendment and bill pass.

Second, we will propose that the only events that can be grandfathered would be those that were already promoted in Canada. Although it was never our intent to allow otherwise, this change will make it clear that events cannot be moved from the United States or Australia or wherever into Canada and be treated as if they've always been here.

Third, we will propose that only events that have been in Canada during the 15 months prior to April 25, 1997, can be grandfathered. Once again, it was never our intent to allow events to be restructured solely for their value as tobacco-marketing vehicles. This amendment formalizes that intent.

In all three cases, we see these as clarifications. They are now completely consistent with the intent of the bill and we are pleased to include them now.

The Canadian Cancer Society proposed two other amendments. One would ban point-of-sale advertising and the other would set a ceiling on sponsorship spending. After review, we believe that both raise questions about feasibility and enforceability. For these reasons, we will be looking forward to what witnesses have to say about those amendments. We'll be looking to this committee for serious consideration of the real implications of both proposals.

I say this not the least of all because experience has taught us that there are limits to what we can achieve through legislation and direct government action.

The government will also be recommending some amendments to Bill C-42.

You will recall that in April, 1997, the government made a commitment to accommodate the major concerns of motor sport organizers in Canada. One of the principles that we maintained during the development of the bill as the fulfilment of that commitment was to treat all arts and sports groups equally. The adjustment would update Bill C-41 with respect to the continuing evolving situation in motor sport. The wording of the bill would be changed to expand the criteria for the grandfathered status of participants to include not only their personal sponsorship status, but that of events in which they're taking part. The amendment will ensure that all participants in a particular event are treated equally.

We now have a generation of experience with large-scale tobacco control policies and programs. That experience has shown us that are no simple answers.

Mr. Chair, if I could have another one minute to complete this statement, I would appreciate it.

The Chair: You have one minute only.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: The factors that lead young people to smoke are complex. The factors that keep people smoking are also complex. So we know the limits to putting all of our eggs in the legislative basket. We are devoting $100 million to our tobacco control initiative.

The Chair: Madam Caplan, let me interrupt you for a second. I want to make accommodation to hear every word you have to say, and you're doing it a little too fast for the translator.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I'm following your direction.

The Chair: I like you because of that. You have 45 seconds left in your minute. Take a deep breath, please.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: We launched the tobacco control initiative in November 1996 and started off by setting aside $50 million over five years. That money was earmarked for areas such as research, policy and program development and legislative enforcement.

Public education was another key component in initiative, one that we believe is critical. We committed another $50 million for the public education component of the initiative during the last election. We restated that commitment in the Speech from the Throne.

From the beginning we knew that getting the greatest impact from those resources would take co-operation with the provinces, territories, communities and non-governmental organizations.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we have consulted widely with other levels of government and groups that share our commitment to a tobacco-free and healthier Canada. We will be designing and implementing the elements of the public education component in conjunction with them.

Many years of anti-tobacco programming have given us a great deal of information about what tools seem to work. Those years have taught us that the battle against tobacco is a step-by-step process, one that requires action in many areas. And it is a battle that is worth pursuing, a battle that can help us reduce the use of tobacco today and the toll in illness and early deaths for years to come.

• 0915

We believe that Bill C-42 is one of many valuable contributions to that work and I look forward to the review by this committee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Madam Caplan—

Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, do we have copies of this? That was a fairly complex series of issues. Do we have a summary of the things the government is doing?

The Chair: Mr. Hill, first of all, just let me thank Madam Caplan for making the presentation available to us. I'm sure she'll make copies available to everyone, and if they're not available before the end of this session they'll certainly be available to us through the clerk before the end of the day.

Would you make all efforts, Madam?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I could let you have a copy now, but this one is all marked up. I will see if I can get you a copy.

The Chair: Maybe you can get your staff to do something for us before the end of the day. Thank you.

I'd like to introduce the people at the table. We've made a little bit of an adjustment in order to accommodate one of the presenters in the next panel who has some travel restrictions.

I'm going to use my prerogative just to extend the next hour a little bit longer, not only to accommodate the 15 minutes that we've lost, but also to take into account the fact that Mr. Gilles Lépine, from

[Translation]

the Fédération québécoise du sport étudiant

[English]

will be part of this panel as opposed to the next one.

[Translation]

Do you have something to say before I do the presentations, Ms. Picard?

Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): I was wondering if they had presented a brief and if it has been distributed.

The Chairman: We have a little problem here. I think today's witnesses did submit a brief, but not necessarily in both official languages. If anyone submits a brief in one language only, it can be made available on the table, but we'll do everything in our power to have a translation distributed later.

Ms. Pauline Picard: Fine.

[English]

The Chair: If there is one in both languages we'll distribute them ourselves. If there's one in only one language it will be at the back.

We have with us Monsieur Rob Cunningham, from the Canadian Cancer Society, Madam Cynthia Callard, who is the executive director of Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada, and Monsieur Gilles Lépine, from la Fédération québécoise du sport étudiant.

I want to thank all of you for coming here on such short notice. I know that some of you have sent presentations to committee members. We have a process here where we'd like to hear very briefly what you have to say—that means that you'll have about five minutes—and then we want to go immediately into questions and answers.

Mr. Cunningham, you have the first five minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Rob Cunningham (Senior Policy Analyst, Canadian Cancer Society): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee on behalf of all the Canadian Cancer Society volunteers all across the country for this opportunity to be heard on Bill C-42.

Our position on this bill can be expressed in two parts. First, we strongly support total prohibition of sponsorship advertising over a five-year period. That's an important improvement on the present provisions of the Tobacco Act.

Second, we strongly oppose granting a new extension for restrictions on sponsorships. In our opinion, it would be unjustified to change October 1, 1998 date for a later one.

[English]

Sponsorship advertising is the purest form of lifestyle advertising. In 1995, the Supreme Court of Canada judges stated unanimously that there was justification under the charter for a total ban on lifestyle advertising of tobacco products because it increased consumption. With sponsorship advertising, we see only imagery associated with fashion shows or car racing or rock music and other events. There's no product information, no commercial information, to be given to the consumer.

The World Health Organization recommends a total ban. Other countries have done it, such as France, Belgium, Finland and New Zealand, with the European Union to be added to the list.

• 0920

We hear tobacco companies say there is no evidence that advertising and sponsorship increases consumption. That is why we have prepared for your consideration and that of your parliamentary colleagues our submission, Compilation of Selected Evidence Regarding the Impact of Tobacco Advertising and Promotion: A Submission to Parliamentarians for Use During Consideration of Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Tobacco Act.

The evidence is considerable: a royal commission, committees, task forces, U.S. Surgeon-General's reports, expert reports, empirical research, published studies, and conclusions of conferences. I commend this evidence to your consideration.

With respect to amendments, we have provided to the clerk—and I believe it's being distributed to you—our recommended amendments to Bill C-42, in both official languages. We have prepared the text, and just as our evidence that we've tabled provides the documents in both English and French based on their original language of publication, we've done the same thing for our amendments.

I'd like to thank the government, as communicated today by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Health, for endorsing some of the amendments that we've proposed and previously communicated to you and that a number of other members of this committee have endorsed during debate at second reading of the bill.

Thus, I'd like to focus on other amendments. Turning to recommendation 3 in the document, we recommend a ceiling on sponsorship expenditures during the transition period. There would be no need for a tobacco company to increase how much they spend, to make the dependence of groups even more severe, to make the sponsorship promotion even more widespread.

The Quebec National Assembly, unanimously, in June 1998, included a ceiling on sponsorship expenditures in its own tobacco act and we believe it is appropriate for a similar provision to apply Canada-wide.

Turning the page to recommendation 4, eliminating sponsorship promotions at point of sale during the transition period, in 1996 we had a situation where tobacco companies were engaging in direct advertising. They took out what they had at point of sale in terms of sponsorship promotions and simply put in direct advertising, and sponsorship events continued as before. They don't need to have something in a corner store or a tobacco store to promote a sponsored event. To minimize the impact of the transition period, we recommend that this amendment be adopted.

Similarly, for recommendation 5, during the transition period we recommend an elimination of sponsorship promotions through non-tobacco goods such as T-shirts. You don't need to promote your T-shirt for people to attend.

We don't need to have people in sponsorship advertising. We don't need to have misleading sponsorship promotions. Those can be prohibited easily in the first two years of the transition period.

Recommendation 6 is to restrict what we have in clause 4 of the bill, which presently applies to all sponsored events. To go back to the letter of April 17, 1997, of the then health minister, David Dingwall, which focused on car racing, we oppose an amendment that would extend the period that sponsorships of car racing would be continued—and what's even worse, for it to be for all events. This amendment would narrow it to car racing only.

In summary, you have our amendments and our written submission. Our recommendation to members of the committee during clause by clause is to vote in favour of clauses 1, 2 and 3 of the bill and to vote against, to defeat, clause 4 of the bill. And clause 5 is going to be redundant, I believe, given the amendments that we've heard are going to be accepted.

Thank you for your time.

The Chair: My compliments on staying very religiously close to the time allotted. Thank you.

Madam Callard.

Ms. Cynthia Callard (Executive Director, Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada ): Thanks to the committee for inviting us. I'm in the unusual position of speaking as a staff person in an organization of physicians. I'm the only non-physician associated with the group, and that's not ideal. I'm here hoping to make three points.

• 0925

First, I want to explain our position. It's kind of odd that people who share a goal of better public health, better individual health, would disagree on the means to that end. We do disagree with the Minister of Health. This is not, in our view, a strengthening of the Tobacco Act. It's a weakening of the Tobacco Act. It's two steps backwards, a five-year pause, and then a step forward. But even that step forward is necessary but not sufficient to end tobacco promotion, so we have less faith that it will achieve the objectives we want of reducing the promotion. I'll get to that at the end of my concerns.

What are the steps back? If Bill C-42 were voted down by this committee, right now across the country in all of the 40,000 to 60,000 corner stores the ads that carry tobacco promotion, sponsorship promotion, race car drivers, whitewater rafters and so forth would be illegal. That would be out. All those billboards would be illegal. They'd be out. If Bill C-42 were struck down by the committee today or by the House later, on the sites of sponsored events tobacco promotion would be restricted to the bottom 10%. These are measures that are not taking place on the sites of the events for this next five years.

Now why does that matter? Because the site of the event is often an entire city. The site of the du Maurier jazz festival is all of downtown Montreal. As for the sites of the fireworks festivals, there's the whole coast of Lake Ontario, along the St. Lawrence River in Montreal, and the waterfront in Vancouver. That's a huge landscape for which to say there's no move at all on this area, this territory, for tobacco sponsorship. Those are the most densely population areas of the country and they will have no restrictions on tobacco promotion through sponsorship for five years.

But mostly I want this issue of tobacco to be looked at very seriously, either by this committee or by someone else. It's been ten years since we've had a lengthy review by parliamentarians or by federal people about tobacco, which is not only the leading cause of death of preventable death in Canada but also the third leading cause of preventable death.

The other reason this chart is relevant, I think, is that it justifies why we would say you should actually interfere with the commercial rights of other organizations and with the legal rights of entities to do something. We have a logic in Canada that there are justifications for certain extreme measures. To prevent car accidents, we say there's a reverse onus of proof for drunk driving. To prevent murder, we give extensive criminal powers. What I'm suggesting is that for tobacco deaths we should be prepared to look at some extreme measures, such as saying you aren't allowed to advertise, that your charter rights of freedom of expression are not, in this case, rights that we want to uphold as a society.

The other thing I want to do is just have a quick history lesson on what's happened. Ten years ago, I sat in this committee room, and in room 309 in the West Block and in a whole bunch of others, as Parliament considered Bill C-52, at that time, the Tobacco Products Control Act.

This chart I've shown you measures tobacco advertising expenditures in a narrow set of advertising media: billboards, television, newspaper ads and magazine ads. It doesn't include retail promotion, the Internet, direct mail, bars or giveaways. It doesn't include a lot of other things. But it is a consistent, if incomplete, measure over time.

In 1988, Parliament passed the Tobacco Products Control Act and had a three-year phase-in on the ban on billboards. You can see that by 1990 tobacco advertising had decreased enormously. By 1995, when the Supreme Court was preparing for its ruling, it had crept up. In the year after the Supreme Court ruling, it doubled.

It took one year—18 months—after that to bring in the Tobacco Act. What happened after the Tobacco Act? Tobacco advertising, it would appear, has increased. The 1988 figures I give, doubling the first six months of 1998— We only have the first six months in. There's reason to think that this is a good measure because in 1995, in a similar study, we had a half measure and then we got the full measure and it had doubled. So there's good reason to think that's an accurate forecast.

There are types of advertising that have increased, like sponsorship, for example. Is the purpose of Bill C-42 and the sponsorship exemptions in Bill C-71 to protect sponsored events? Are we protecting the status quo? No, I say, you're not protecting the status quo; you're tilting the balance. Sponsorship is continuing to grow. There's no reason to think that in the next two years and in the next five years that it's going to diminish, that we're just sort of capping it at a certain level.

Even grandfathering certain events is not going to cap it because they'll just put more money into the events than they did five or ten years ago. And even this grandfathering is a little soft. There's a Jacques Villeneuve clause, which the parliamentary secretary referred to, that says Jacques Villeneuve wasn't racing for Rothmans back before the grandfathering, but we'll allow him to continue so he can promote Winfield cigarettes, which, as anybody who lives in Montreal knows, were introduced and marketed heavily this spring when the Formula One came to town.

• 0930

But here is one of the most disturbing graphs. In 1972, as a result, actually, of pressure from John Munro, who was Minister of Health then and said he had a bill that was going to stop them from advertising, the tobacco industry said, “You don't need to do that. We have a voluntary code and we'll tell you what—we'll take all of our ads off radio and television.” And they did. For a generation, there were no ads on radio or television.

But look at what's happened and look at what's happened even since the passage of the Tobacco Act. The amount did go down, but it's still there. And this is in the form of: “Come on down to the Benson and Hedges fireworks festival—it's a great thing!” Or they have a picture of the Rothmans car going around, with the saying “Formula One racing: it's great!” But they say Rothmans, the picture is there, and the association is there in the minds of kids that this is something they might want to see and be part of.

We are very concerned about outdoor advertising. Outdoor advertising had diminished at the beginning of this decade. It's increased since. This chart bears some reflection. It's in the material that I passed around to you.

Health Canada does not provide annual data for smoking rates among youth. The red chart shows smoking rates among youth as measured by the RJR-Macdonald tobacco industry. I assume they know what they're talking about. This is the rate of promotion. You'll see that every year tobacco advertising went down, smoking among 19- to 24-year-olds, the youngest group that they measured, went down. In every year but one, when tobacco advertising went up, smoking rates went up.

I'm not saying this is a causal connection, but I'm saying it's a disturbing statistic. And I hope that you will look at the evidence that my colleague from the Cancer Society has brought in. I suggest that the committee or someone should look more closely than we are in these 10 minutes that we get to lay out our argument as to what this problem is.

No one has died of natural food health, as far as I know. That got a whole year's study. Forty thousand are dying and we're getting a couple of days. This is of concern.

Quickly, here are the ads they had when there were no laws. Here's the ad they had when they had the Tobacco Products Control Act. Here's the ad they had after the Tobacco Products Control Act was shut down under their voluntary code—no human figures, a health warning. Here's the ad they had after the Tobacco Act came in: human figures, lifestyle advertising, no health warning. This is the billboard that C-42 is going to protect. If C-42 were banned, this billboard and every one like it would be taken down in this country. This is why we are opposed to the bill.

But here's why I don't have faith in the five-year step forward. Five years from now, maintains the government, that ad will be banned. You will not be able to have it.

But there's another section in C-71, in the Tobacco Act, that's ready to be used. There are no restrictions on ads for goods or services—they can have tobacco names—if they're not appealing to youth and if they don't have a lifestyle association.

So if you want to sell something like driver's insurance, which isn't for youth, if you want to sell something like mayonnaise, which is the example that Health Canada is using right now—and they don't have an answer to this question—and if you wanted to sell something like investments in security or courier services, you can advertise those and have pretty pictures of people doing exciting things; there's no block.

So my fear—and I think, after watching the tobacco industry for five years, it's a realistic fear—is that they're going to use the next five years to develop other businesses. They developed sponsorship—you have the graph—to circumvent the previous act and now they'll use other businesses to circumvent this act.

That's why we're in the position of not supporting the bill and hoping that C-42 will be amended so that only the five-year restriction comes in. And then, let the committee look at the genuine issues behind tobacco advertising, youth smoking and the mortality and the morbidity associated with it and make serious amendments to tobacco legislation, not just tinkering ones to satisfy the concerns of sporting and arts agencies and the tobacco industry.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Madam Callard. You went a little over your time limit, but I didn't want to interrupt you in the middle of your presentation. I will take just a moment for clarification, though. In fairness to the committee, the members did spend a considerable amount of time reviewing all of the issues under C-71.

[Translation]

Mr. Lépine.

Mr. Gilles Lépine (Director, Fédération québécoise du sport étudiant): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you, members of the committee for inviting us here. You will understand that, like the other witnesses, I had to react quickly to be here this morning.

I tabled a presentation document at the back of the room which is in French only, unfortunately, but it does have a lot of illustrations and that makes it easy to translate the message that it contains and that I'm here to present.

• 0935

I'm here as the spokesman for the network called Le Sport étudiant that acts as an umbrella group for all primary schools, high schools, colleges and universities in Quebec. You can imagine the numbers. Finally, that also includes all Quebec's young people. Le Sport étudiant's mission is to educate youth through sport and thus, from sport, to health and so on.

We've been fighting fiercely for the last four years to prevent smoking among young people. Maybe you were given a heads-up as I was with those alarming statistics that indicate an epidemic: over 38% of our young people are now smoking which is double what it was four years ago.

We really get the impression we're using pea shooters against bazookas. The industry has almost unlimited resources, people who put pressure on you and other leaders to continue promoting their lethal products. We know that 90% of all young people who smoke started before the age of 19. The impact is very strong especially in the ranks of the 12 and 13-year olds. We're even being told that, today, by the age of 13, they're already lost. We now have to work with the 10 and 11-year olds.

In the document I submitted here this morning, you'll see pictures as alarming as this: a young 10 or 12-year old girl smoking. Unfortunately, that has become commonplace and it's accepted. She wouldn't be able to consume alcohol, however, because she'd be arrested almost immediately. That's what kids do to feel like adults.

I especially don't want to repeat what's already been said because I quite agree with it. Mr. Cunningham is certainly far more able than I to appropriately critique the bill as such. We must not weaken the bill. We can't give even more weapons to tobacco producers to reach our young people. They're doing admirably and I congratulate them for their marketing even though I do criticize them and I'd love to hang them high for the harm they're doing to society.

So, as I was saying before and as I state in the document, the number of young smokers has doubled. It's a critical and alarming situation in our opinion. We ran a study last spring of 3,931 young people from 5th and 6th grades, especially in our region, in 42 schools and we noticed one very interesting fact, amongst others. For our young children, the most important stars are first and foremost those who play our national sport, hockey. They head the list. Bravo! But who comes ahead of Michael Jordan? Jacques Villeneuve. Jacques Villeneuve is more popular than Michael Jordan.

I've been in student sport for 25 years. There are basketball loops set up on every street corner and in every gymnasium you have kids playing and going at it in that sport. To date, and to my knowledge, we've never organized any Formula 1 races in our schools, but it's a very popular sport with our youth and it has an incredible impact. So when someone tells you that Formula 1 doesn't influence our kids, don't believe them. I can see the direct effect. Our number one sport in schools, basketball, is played everywhere but it's in third place after Formula 1 races, with all the media impact they can have and where you have Jacques Villeneuve, our national hero in Quebec, wearing the slogan "Smoking is good for you".

If all the Montreal Canadiens and Toronto Maple Leaf players wore Marlboro sweaters, you might have a bit of a scandal. But that's what's going on right now.

We're being conned. We're led to believe that it doesn't affect our children even though it most certainly does. It gets them smoking earlier and earlier. And the worst is that they find it absolutely normal to be able to purchase tobacco and cigarettes, something which is supposed to be illegal for them.

I won't rant on uselessly. We've adopted a firm position on that. We're trying to support it with specific figures. We're trying to make you, our leaders who represent us as citizens, understand that you can't weaken the law, that you can't open wide the doors, that you can't give the tobacco companies free reign and allow them to increase and pursue their actions that are directly targeting our kids. Every year, they need 45,000 new sets of lungs and they use our kids to get them. That's something you'll be hearing a lot and I'm not through repeating it, nor are many others.

I totally support what has been said, that there have to be some deadlines. We must respect the new parameters drawn by Bill C-71. Continue in that vein and don't water down of the legislation. Please, for all our kids (yours and mine) don't weaken Bill C-71. Rather, see to it that the impact of the tobacco companies in the media is weakened. See to it that we're a bit better equipped to face the music, to educate our kids and it's often difficult to succeed at that what with television and all the advertising surrounding us.

I'll end with an anecdote. In my city, Quebec City, the advertising for the mountain biking event mentioned earlier is put up six months before it happens, and it's still up two months after it's over. You may wonder why and what these ads are actually pushing when you see that huge capital A. You can be sure that our kids aren't any more stupid than we are; they make the immediate association with cigarettes.

• 0940

We should not think that our kids are stupider than they actually are. They're very well surveyed by the cigarette people. They're being exploited to the hilt. Besides turning smoking into something commonplace, sports are now being used to encourage our kids to smoke. Frankly, as a real sportsman, I am deeply offended. Making this association between sports, the symbol of a physical activity that promotes better fitness and tobacco, a product that kills, just brings on revulsion. You must know that every year, tobacco kills more people than there were soldiers killed during the whole Second World War.

That's what I had to say. I hope that what I've said has made you more aware of the problem. I hope that this will have clarified things for you and will lead you to make the best decision for us and our children. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lépine.

[English]

I'm immediately going to go to questions from our colleagues around the table. Just as a courtesy to Monsieur Lépine, who has a flight at 10.30 a.m., I think, if any of you have questions with respect to any of the panel members, could you direct those for Monsieur Lépine to him first? Then he can be on his way. If not, we'll let the conversation go as it will.

Mr. Lépine, when you have to leave, please feel free.

Monsieur Hill.

Mr. Grant Hill: Thank you.

The government's position has been that this bill toughens the Tobacco Act, and in fact those were the words Madam Caplan used this morning. I would like to know from each one of you what you think: if the amendments as suggested by the government go through, does this bill toughen the Tobacco Act in any way, shape or form? I so vigorously disagree with that position I'd like to know whether you think that this toughens the Tobacco Act. Just short and sweet, each one of you: is this in fact a toughening?

Mr. Rob Cunningham: In the short term, no. In the long term, yes, after five years.

Ms. Cynthia Callard: In the short term, it weakens it enormously. Five years is more than a short term. In the five-year term it strengthens it, but in fact I think other laws are needed and there's time to pass those before that five-year improvement.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Lépine.

Mr. Gilles Lépine: I share the same point of view exactly. Even later on, five years down the road, we'll have to continue and provide for other measures. They're experts at marketing and they're far better at it than you and I and they will certainly find another way to get around the law. We really have to rally all the active forces within government and the health services community to find more new stopgap measures five years from now. For the short term as well as well as for the long term, my position is the same as my colleagues'.

[English]

Mr. Grant Hill: The second statement I heard is that this bill will at least put us alongside all the other international jurisdictions. In fact, I had heard we will be leading in the world. What do you think of our position in the world when we look at what other countries are doing with tobacco interdiction?

Mr. Rob Cunningham: Simply looking at the question of tobacco marketing, we would not be leading in the world. Other countries have total bans on advertising, promotion and sponsorship. There would still be permitted advertising under the Tobacco Act.

Ms. Cynthia Callard: Canada is better than a lot of countries, but it lags significantly behind other Anglo-Saxon countries with the exception of Britain. It lags behind Australia, New Zealand, Norway and France, which isn't actually an Anglo-Saxon country but is far ahead.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Lépine, what is your position?

Mr. Gilles Lépine: When we compare ourselves to other countries, I think of how things are done in Australia where there is a fund for health promotion that comes out of the profits of the tobacco manufacturers. We tried the same thing during a provincial school championship. We tried to promote health through sports events and thus to turn the situation around. I'd far prefer to see Jacques Villeneuve wearing the slogan "Milk is frankly better" or even using products that are good for your health.

If you want my opinion, I find that we're lagging behind compared to other countries and compared to people who understood long ago that we have to turn things around.

Mr. Grant Hill: Mr. Lépine, if we compare the Quebec and Canadian legislation, if the bill goes through, which legislation will be the stronger?

Mr. Gilles Lépine: The Quebec legislation is presently far stronger than the federal legislation in many respects. But we shouldn't allow the present Quebec or federal legislation to be weakened by whatever amendments might be brought in. That's where we have to be careful.

I'm not trained in law, but we have to be careful not to weaken the interesting work Quebec has done, work that's been hailed as being good for health; nor should we weaken the good parts of Bill C-71. That's what I have concerns about: advertising that targets youth. I certainly wouldn't want to leave myself open to attack by those people.

Mr. Grant Hill: Thank you.

• 0945

The Chairman: Thank you Mr. Hill. Madame Picard.

Ms. Pauline Picard: I'd like to say that in Quebec, after two years later, there will be a total ban, and we set up a compensation fund. What's going on, at this time, is that the sports and cultural event organizers can choose between complying, after two years, with the Quebec legislation or with the federal legislation, which forces them to respect the 10% rule on advertising.

I'm told that sports and cultural event organizers in Quebec were far more interested in coming under the provincial legislation. They've already started finding sponsors. I think it's the Just for Laughs Festival and the du Maurier Tennis Open that may be sponsored by Hydro Quebec. So I'm told that all this is getting organized.

I would also like to tell Mr. Cunningham and Ms. Callard that lately I saw something that really blew my mind. I know that the people from the baby-boomer generation, especially the women and the younger people, started smoking because of the role models they saw on television, a young woman with a cigarette holder, for example. It was cool, it was chic, it was done in the best circles.

I quite agree with you about advertising. It will certainly have to disappear from the face of this earth. That would be the really ideal situation. But, even in that case— You've said a lot about the effects of advertising. You've tried to show us how bad it is.

However, there's another factor that's coming up. I don't know if you'll be able to do something about that. Last week, I was watching a top model from Quebec being interviewed. The name is Eve Salvail and she now works in New York. All the young girls dream about her and easily identify with a professional model. They'd all like to be Eve Salvail.

Now, during the interview, this young person lit up a cigarette and that's worse than anything you can see in the commercials. It's even worse than the tiny 10% that will be allowed over the five years. I'm from the baby-boomer generation and I went though that. At 15 or 16, we weren't smoking yet, but when we were 18 or 19, and cigarette holders came on the scene when we wanted to go to the university and become somebody, that's when you started smoking.

That's what's going on right now. I think we're going to have to go a bit further and prohibit that kind of thing. For quite a while, we didn't see anyone smoking on television. Now, they're doing it in the soap operas. I think from now on we'll have to make the producers and directors more conscious of the problem so they don't start using again an approach that worked in the past.

I'd like to know what you think about that.

The Chairman: Thank you, Madam. You still have a few minutes. Who wants to get the ball rolling?

Mr. Rob Cunningham: I agree with a lot of what you said. Models and people who smoke can have an important influence on the young and the not so young. We've learned that the tobacco manufacturers paid to have their cigarettes show up in Hollywood movies, in Superman II, in James Bond movies and so on, because they know how much influence role models have. So I agree with a lot of what you said.

[English]

The Chair: Madam Callard.

Ms. Cynthia Callard: But I think it's important to suspect that in fact models like that are paid to smoke. Many of them will do it anyway, but where there have been court trials we've had evidence of certain people being paid endorsement fees and so forth. We have informal endorsements, formal endorsements and endorsements like this Jacques Villeneuve poster—this is not an ad for the Rothmans' race—that's sold to hang on the walls of children. That is a form of endorsement that can be made illegal. C-71 could have made it illegal. C-42 makes sure that it's not illegal for another five years.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Lépine: I talked about models before. It's very strong for young people. That's what we're working with. Actually, we have to work on the whole image that's held up to our young people, whether it's through posters or the role models they see.

• 0950

It's so strong that what you and I went through at 18 and 19, they now go through at 11. Something really that has to be done. There's a lot of prostitution going on right now and it's somewhat understandable. Just put yourself in the shoes of a Jacques Villeneuve or an actor like Sylvester Stallone who got a half-million dollars for some movies. It's easy now, because the legislation allows you to do it, to get a sponsorship to smoke in a movie or to do like Jacques Villeneuve who's earning his living promoting tobacco. I must say that this prostitution has to stop at some point if we want to limit the damage.

[English]

The Chair: I wonder if I could ask a question. I guess I'm going to be a devil's advocate a little.

All of you have talked about role models. I guess what we're talking about in terms of advertising is that in a very paternalistic way we are looking for someone to solve a problem. And I don't think anybody around the table disagrees it is a problem. But in an effort to get a paternalistic solution, has anyone examined what some of the other environmental issues might be with respect to the pressures that lead people to smoke? I'm thinking, for example, perhaps naively so, that parents might have an impact on whether kids smoke or not.

Ms. Cynthia Callard: There's been a lot of evidence to show that parents smoking, friends smoking and so forth in fact do have an influence. These ads make a huge difference, but so does it when your best friend pulls out the du Maurier package from a back pocket and opens up, and there your friend is, all sophisticated.

That's why we wanted plain packaging. There's evidence that plain packaging and removing all the associations of these brands, colours and imagery from a behaviour that addicts you before you're old enough to vote and kills you before you're old enough to draw a pension was something that needed to happen.

But we're having trouble making headway on those other avenues as well. You're right. This is only a part of the problem. The other problem also needs to be addressed, with non-legislative solutions sometimes, with regulatory solutions, with behavioural solutions and with social policy as well. But I don't think society can abrogate its legal responsibilities just while it's working on social conditions either.

The Chair: I just thought about this when Mr. Lépine was speaking about students and role models. Just out of curiosity, have any of your organizations approached Jacques Villeneuve and asked him to find a different line of income other than the one of promoting a product that I think everybody around this room says is not good?

Mr. Rob Cunningham: I did speak personally with one of the members of the Players racing team when they had a reception hall of honour in 1997 prior to the passage of C-71. I asked him about that point and he declined to accept the invitation, if we can put it that way.

But I agree that there is a need for a comprehensive response to tobacco use among adults and among kids. Different factors have an influence. And as part of a comprehensive response, we recommend that the House of Commons adopt Bill S-13, the Tobacco Industry Responsibility Act, which would provide funds to reduce smoking among young people through programs and initiatives. That will be before you for consideration in the months ahead.

The Chair: You may have an opportunity to address that if and when it comes before this committee.

Monsieur Lépine, do you want to say something? I think you're the one who triggered the thought in my mind: this is a national hero—and he's even more than that in Quebec. I'm sure all these organizations are sincere and I don't mean to diminish them at all, but it seems to me this would be one way to get some very effective action.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Lépine: I can only agree with what you're saying, Mr. Chairman. In effect, if we could contact, as we tried to do several times— It's hard for somebody earning a living pushing cigarettes to give up a source of earnings worth millions of dollars a year and come out against tobacco.

But perhaps something can be done. Let me tell you, I have a ton of ideas. Give me the same bazooka, give me $50 million per year, and I will get you some excellent ideas.

For example, there's Céline Dion, whom you may know of. If we had her singing with a "Drink Milk" banner or wearing an entire costume that promoted bread or some kind of health food, I guarantee you that would have an impact on young people.

Give me $50 million, and I guarantee you that I will come up with ideas that have just as strong an impact as the tobacco industry's ads. In the final analysis, that's kind of where the problem lies. I feel like an apostle crying out in the desert, saying that we have to do something for youth. I just don't have the same weapons as those people do. If we let them keep on marketing cigarettes as they do so well, we might as well just give up.

• 0955

We have to set some limits on them. We could say to them, "Congratulations! Way to go! You've managed to double the number of young smokers." Smoking will kill half of them. I congratulate them on their successful marketing, but I have to criticize them for killing half of their customers.

On the other hand, we've let them get away with it. Society has let them do this. So, give us what we need to take them on, and take away a few of their weapons. That way, it would be more of a fair fight.

Yes, I have some good ideas for you, and yes, we did think of asking celebrities to do some health promotion targeted at youth.

[English]

The Chair: It's very nice of you to lob the ball back into the court of the parliamentary secretary, who's just dying to give you an opportunity to listen to her about the programs the government has put together to fight tobacco smoking.

Madam Judy Wasylycia-Leis.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

Before I start, just on a point of something, I'd like to know when it would be appropriate to move a motion that the written submissions and the compilation of evidence referenced today by the presenters be received as exhibits to the committee.

The Chair: That's already done.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: It's done as a matter of course?

The Chair: Yes, thank you.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you.

First, Mr. Chairperson, I'd like to thank all three presenters, not only for appearing today on short notice—and believe me, we tried hard to extend the time during which this committee would pursue this important issue of tobacco, and we failed—but also for your work over the last many years in fighting this issue and doing your best to try to bring in sound public policy in this area.

I have three quick questions. I'll do them all at once, because I know I'll get cut off if I don't, and you might have a little more sway over the chair in the timing.

First, with respect to sponsorship advertising—

The Chair: You're using up your time.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: —Mr. Chairperson made a point, a curious question, in suggesting that we go after the Jacques Villeneuves of the world and persuade them not to engage in this kind of business. My question, really to the government but to you for clarification, is, why does this government not see its role in terms of exercising its duty and responsibility? Why is there this passing of the buck when the evidence is so clear around the dangerous, destructive, harmful aspects of sponsorship advertising? That's number one.

Number two, the amendment you've proposed on limiting expenditures or putting a ceiling on tobacco company sponsorship promotion expenditures during the delay period has not been accepted, as we've heard today from the government. I think Elinor Caplan made the suggestion that it might not be possible within this piece of legislation to make such an amendment, so I'd like to hear your opinion on that. Is there anything that would prohibit us from moving forward with that amendment?

The last question has to do with, again, your proposal for dealing with off-site advertising as it relates to sponsorship advertising. I believe the parliamentary secretary suggested that the original Tobacco Act is tough on off-site advertising and it would, by implication, deal with this issue. My sense is that such is not the case, for two reasons: one, the tobacco act is not fully up and operational because it's lacking the regulations; and two, this particular bill before us allows for tobacco sponsorship advertising to be extended to off-site locations. So my question is, what would be your advice on that?

Mr. Rob Cunningham: Let me answer that by—

The Chair: I'll interrupt you for only a second, Mr. Cunningham. There's only about a minute and a half, so I think in the interests of giving you an opportunity to answer questions fully— I have a list of speakers. Why don't you take just one of those questions and elaborate on it? I'll give the other panellists an opportunity to answer them in the next round. I'll just come back to them. So don't feel rushed; you have a minute and a half, so just answer one.

Mr. Rob Cunningham: I'll answer one question, then, the one dealing with the ceiling on sponsorship expenditures. There are questions about whether this is enforceable or feasible. My answer to those questions? Yes, it is.

And we can look to the tobacco act in Quebec, where it's included in that legislation; the National Assembly, which adopted it unanimously, would have undoubtedly felt it was enforceable and feasible to do.

• 1000

We've seen it in other types of measures. There was a provision in the Tobacco Products Control Act, previously adopted at the federal level, which had a ceiling on some type of sponsorship expenditures. Unfortunately, it wasn't drafted in a good way and they continue to grow through shell companies in terms of their sponsorship expenditures. It can be done effectively.

The Chair: Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I believe to have an effective bill you have to do three things. There are three components that really impact on smoking, especially new smokers. One component is taxes; in other words, price point, the relationship between the price of the product and the consumption of the product. Another is obviously advertising, and this bill addresses some of that. And the other part of it is education.

But if the government is really serious about reducing the number of smokers, especially new smokers, and doing something about the 40,000 documented deaths a year, what should it be doing? I guess what I'm saying is that this bill doesn't do a heck of a lot to address my concerns to reduce the number of deaths, the number of smokers, every year.

Mr. Rob Cunningham: Of the three points that you raise, I agree, two out of the three are not covered by this bill. We still do have dramatically lower tobacco taxes in Ontario and Quebec: $16 per carton lower in taxes than prior to the 1994 tax rollback. That has an important influence. And our recommendation to government and to Parliament is to get those taxes back up at a pace faster than the one we've seen in the last couple of years. We've made a little progress in the last couple of years.

And with respect to the education component, we have Bill S-13, which is a matter for a different time, but that is something that Parliament can do to ensure that sufficient education is addressed to children.

Mr. Greg Thompson: You're speaking of Senator Kenny's bill, correct?

Mr. Rob Cunningham: That's correct.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Which will be introduced in the House, I believe, sometime after Remembrance Day. Is that correct?

Mr. Rob Cunningham: I'm not sure when it's going to be introduced. Dr. Carolyn Bennett is going to sponsor the bill in the House of Commons. It was co-sponsored by Progressive Conservative Senator Pierre Claude Nolin in the Senate and adopted unanimously in that Chamber.

Mr. Greg Thompson: And I believe the feeling is that the government is going to use procedural tactics to keep that bill out of the House of Commons. Is that what you're hearing?

Mr. Rob Cunningham: There have certainly been news reports to that effect, including an editorial in the Montreal Gazette. We would hope that all members of Parliament would not use procedural initiative to kill a bill that we see as being extremely valuable for reducing tobacco use.

The Chair: Do you want to answer the other questions, Madam Callard?

Ms. Cynthia Callard: I was just going to say that there are many mechanisms. If the proposal to cap is beyond the scope of the bill, the House can unanimously decide to permit an amendment that's beyond the scope of the bill by a unanimous recommendation from this committee to do so. Or, as has happened many times in the past, a committee has passed an amendment that's technically out of order because it's beyond the scope of the bill. The Speaker has traditionally looked the other way when these are received in the report.

These procedural objections, broadly speaking, shouldn't get in the way of good health measures. With respect to S-13, even if there are procedural concerns, the concept is sound. Right now, the federal government gets $10 per carton of cigarettes and they spend 10¢ on all measures. That includes: people clamping down on sales to minors; research and surveys; their own policy development; and grants to organizations like us. It includes everything. That's not a lot of money compared to other jurisdictions. If S-13 isn't the way they want to go, if they don't want to set up another foundation or whatever—

The Chair: If you could stop for a second, not to defend the government's position or anything, but let's stick with the one at hand. We're speaking of a hypothetical case, whether it comes before the House or not, and then when it comes before the committee, if it comes before the committee. If you want to spend the rest of your five minutes debating something that isn't here, that's okay—

Mr. Cynthia Callard: I didn't express myself properly. I thought I was answering the question about education programs, and what I should have spoken about with reference to education and resourcing education, is that there are many ways to achieve it, with a lot of money coming in through tobacco revenues. In fact, the federal government receives $80 million a year from the sale of illegal cigarettes to children. Three per cent of the market is an underage market that represents $80 million. Just putting that money toward education efforts so that the government isn't profiting from the proceeds of that crime would go a long way to protecting our youth.

Mr. Greg Thompson: One quick question: if Bill C-42 is passed, the billboards would then become legal, correct? It's so ironic, in a sense. In other words, the bill has to be passed to make those billboards legal, which is absolutely bizarre. Am I correct in saying that—

Ms. Cynthia Callard: That's my understanding.

Mr. Greg Thompson: —is our agreement?

• 1005

And Mr. Lépine, as a former educator, I'm quite concerned with what you've had to say. I guess I'd like a comment from you in terms of education and lifestyle advertising. Is this bill going going to do anything?

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Lépine: Yes, I completely agree with you. You mentioned taxes, which are needed so as to make the product less affordable. It's the accessibility of this product that has allowed tobacco use to double over the past few years. Advertising also has an impact, because it makes smoking seem more attractive. The third aspect is education; we have to explain to young people why they must not start smoking. But a great deal of work still has to be done.

If a phys-ed teacher such as myself tells young people not to do certain things in order to protect their health, and once they leave school for the day, they see Jacques Villeneuve on TV or on a billboard, I've just lost all the educational impact that I might have had.

I agree with you that we really need to take a three-pronged approach: one, prices and taxes; two, advertising; and three, education so as to explain to young people why they should never start smoking.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lépine.

Mr. Elley.

Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Thank you very much.

I find it difficult to disagree with anything that you've said. With this great mass of evidence, I don't see how intelligent people could ever disagree with what you've said. It's a terrible problem in our society and we have to do something about it.

You've indicated that you don't feel this bill will in the short term do anything positive to help the situation in Canada—and even after five years. I'm going to ask you to perhaps take the role of prophet here. Tell me, after five years, what are we going to have to do in this country to achieve the objectives you're suggesting? What would the government then have to do five years from now? What kind of a situation are we going to have five years from now?

Ms. Cynthia Callard: I think we are where we are today because we haven't really properly understood and we haven't integrated tobacco into our public debates enough. My hope would be that five years from now we have an amassed body of evidence, a review, either a parliamentary review or a royal commission, something, that gets the evidence out to justify to the Supreme Court the use of strict measures, strict bans on all forms of advertising and promotion, whether it's on mayonnaise jars or racing cars. I think five years is certainly sufficient time to be able to do that.

The question is, is there a will politically in the broader public to deal with tobacco as that type of issue? Or is it going to get the bum's rush through these short iterative processes? I hope there will be some comprehensive, meaty review of it by someone in the forthcoming years.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Lépine: Thank you very much. We've talked about educating young people, but I hope that five years from now, all of us will have a greater awareness of what kind of parasites and vultures we are dealing with. The industry is living off our dead, is currently making profits that cost all of us money in terms of our health care system and compromises our fellow citizens' quality of life. These people are parasites and vultures.

Until we realize that for 50 years, they've managed to make utter idiots of us—I like that expression—and make us think that smoking improves our quality of life, as long as we continue to believe that, and until we challenge the tobacco manufacturers or fight them with the same kind of weaponry, we will keep on being ineffectual against them. I hope that five years from now, our awareness level will be higher, and we will be far tougher on tobacco manufacturers.

[English]

Mr. Rob Cunningham: At the end of five years, the Tobacco Act will still permit direct advertising and you'll understand from a health point of view that we would want to see a Tobacco Act that had a total ban on all forms of advertising and promotion.

But even before waiting for five years, this committee is awaiting the government's tabling of regulations under the Tobacco Act with respect to packaging, labelling, warnings and promotional aspects. There is an opportunity there to have better messages for consumers, more information that would help dissuade smoking, and plain packaging, a measure recommended by this committee in 1994. There's a lot more we can do.

The Chair: As long as we live under the rule of law, maybe you could help us as legislators, because this committee wrestled with the issue of legislation in the past.

There are lot of people who are frustrated because of the Supreme Court decision that said the Tobacco Act that was there, in force—and which, as Madam Callard pointed out, had some impact—was no longer constitutional.

• 1010

Do you have a suggestion for legislators—forget about the colour of the party in government—about how to get around that?

Mr. Rob Cunningham: I have a couple of comments. First, because there are different types of promotion, I think a ban on sponsorship advertising is justifiable because of the Supreme Court of Canada's judgment that it comes under the category of lifestyle advertising.

If we look at section 27 and surrounding parts of the Tobacco Act not addressed by this bill, it deals with indirect advertising, with brand-stretching, the t-shirts and the hats and the vacations for a cigarette brand—or Marlboro clothing. We see how in Quebec's tobacco act they had a total ban on the use of logos on non-tobacco goods, but they still permitted some direct advertising in certain categories.

So I feel that it's justified, as the Quebec National Assembly did, on that part of the Tobacco Act to have a complete ban at this point. We do have the reality of the Supreme Court of Canada judgment. Nevertheless, the evidence that exists today is considerable. There are many dozens of studies and reports—hundreds perhaps—that exist now which did not exist at the time that the court case began in 1989. There is new evidence. And if there were a trial testing a total ban on tobacco advertising, my view is that today it would be upheld as constitutional.

The Chair: But you're willing to acknowledge that at least working under the limitations of what's there today, that is an opinion, but we're going to try to deal with the fact that we have before us, and that is, that Supreme Court decision. And while I'm not going to be the first one, nor am I going to be amongst any who will argue against the philosophical positions that you would espouse, as legislators we still have to operate—

Ms. Cynthia Callard: May I—

The Chair: —under those constraints. And some of those legislative items that have been presented in other jurisdictions have yet to be tested in the courts, so we're expressing an opinion at this stage of the game.

But as an individual legislator, I take what you've said to mean that so far things appear to be, at least in the mid- to long-distance, very positive, even with these amendments. That's what I thought I heard.

Madam Callard.

Ms. Cynthia Callard: This is about the nature of opinions. It's very difficult. The Supreme Court decision didn't even speak about sponsorships directly. There are a million opinions, just as there are lawyers almost, or economists.

My point is to beware of opinions. When C-71 was being reviewed, we had private meetings and public meetings with the drafters and with those who were putting it together. We were told at the time that it was absolutely as tough as the bill could be, according to Justice Canada's opinion. They said we couldn't have any more restrictions on sponsorship, nothing else.

Now we're having a bill that suggests that five years from now we can have a total ban on sponsorship; last year I was told that it wouldn't survive a charter challenge and now I'm being told it will. There haven't been any other cases before the court that would have new rulings, so something has changed. Opinions have changed and the people who have the ear of the decision-makers have changed.

So I'm always very skeptical when I'm told by lawyers that something won't survive. I think there are ways of asking the court for decisions that are quicker and can give legislators the guidance they need.

The Chair: Thank you.

Are there other questions?

Madam Wasylycia-Leis, I think you still wanted to pursue those three questions.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Absolutely.

The Chair: I'm assuming that's what you wanted.

Do you recall the questions?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I think actually—

The Chair: No, just a second.

Madam Callard, do you recall the questions?

Ms. Cynthia Callard: I think we've answered them.

The Chair: You've answered them?

You answered one, I know, Mr. Cunningham. Do you want to try your hand at the others?

Mr. Rob Cunningham: Sure.

The Chair: Go ahead.

Mr. Rob Cunningham: With respect to a voluntary initiative by the government to get Jacques Villeneuve or others in a similar position to stop endorsing tobacco products through sponsorships, the government might attempt to do that and might succeed after some considerable effort. But then the tobacco companies are going to use their financial resources and their people resources to find somebody else or some other event to sponsor. It's a type of voluntary initiative and our experience with respect to the tobacco issue over decades is that voluntary initiatives are insufficient. We need legislation.

With respect to off-site advertising, in the first two years we will continue to have off-site promotions under this bill because of the amendment. We would like to have a total ban on sponsorship as soon as possible. The more restrictions we can have in place, the earlier those dates may be and the better off we're going to be.

• 1015

But in terms of our recommendation, the point-of-sale promotion in terms of the off-site promotion for sponsorship, we feel that's justified, because we have a specific example where tobacco can be stopped. In 1996 that type of promotion didn't have any impact on the events that are continuing and it's just a very easy amendment we think could be adopted by this committee—although we'd like the amendment to be much stronger, but—

The Chair: Monsieur Lépine.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Lépine: I have nothing to add.

[English]

The Chair: Judy, you still have another two minutes left in your five-minute portion.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Very quickly, then, I wanted to follow up on Cynthia's point about the issue of how tobacco hasn't been fully integrated in public policy debates and in discussions with the general public at large. I agree with that, but I also see that there must be some other factors at work.

You're dealing with a government that is aware of all the facts and figures you've presented and surely understands the impact on our health care system in terms of just cost. And yet, we've had three consecutive health ministers who have promised tough action and who have retreated each and every time. We were promised plain packaging and there was a retreat. We were promised an increase in taxes and there's been a retreat. Now we're promised tough sponsorship advertising and there's a retreat before us. What are the factors that keep getting in the way of progress on this issue? Is it the power of the tobacco industry? Is it politics? What is your assessment of this problem?

Ms. Cynthia Callard: The tobacco companies play hardball and they play hardball behind the scenes. I don't think they should be underestimated. They're very effective at what they do and I think the evidence is there.

A friend of mine said to me recently. “Why do you work in tobacco? Isn't it like shooting fish in a barrel? Everyone knows the tobacco companies are right there.” The problem is, we keep missing. It should be like shooting fish in a barrel, but we do keep missing, and I think one of the other factors out there is that we are in a time of deregulation. There is less and less interest in seeing government play the heavy hand of many regulations and so forth.

It makes it very difficult for us to try to persuade people that stronger government action is needed in an area when there tends to be a view like the one, for example, that sees regulation of all food and health ads now deregulated and the Health Protection Branch reorganizing itself to do its protection in a different way. I don't know. I wish I had a better answer to your question. But it's not working very well for public health.

The Chair: Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You're very generous this morning to this party.

This goes back to Ms. Caplan's statements—

An hon. member: Oh, oh.

Mr. Greg Thompson: You generous guy, I'm glad you're chairman.

This goes back to Ms. Caplan's statements earlier in the day on behalf of the minister. I don't have the luxury of having that before me and I was trying to keep track of the amendments. In her statement, did she go into clause 5— section 52— of the act? That would allow the government to reset the clock, unless that has changed.

Cynthia, I know you paid some attention to that. Was that addressed in the minister's—

Ms. Cynthia Callard: That's a very important amendment the government's willing to do. We're very grateful that change will be made. It'll make an enormous difference.

Mr. Greg Thompson: That was one of our major concerns. That would tighten up that end of the act.

Mr. Rob Cunningham: I agree that the amendments the government's agreed to support will close some important potential loopholes.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Okay. Going back to the taxation side of it, in 1994 when the government significantly reduced taxes on cigarettes, what kind of an increase did we see in the consumption of that product? I say they capitulated to the smugglers and to the tobacco companies, but, statistically speaking, can you track the increase in the number of smokers?

Ms. Cynthia Callard: It's highly controversial because we don't know how many cigarettes were sold in the years when smuggling was high. The estimates vary widely. It makes it very difficult. I can provide you separately with what information we have; it's a lot of numbers. I'll provide that to you. It certainly had an impact on both the number of cigarettes individuals smoked and probably on the number of smokers as well.

• 1020

Mr. Rob Cunningham: If we look at tobacco company data provided to Statistics Canada, we see a decline in per capita consumption for about 12 years prior to the tobacco tax rollback when you factor in tobacco industry estimates of smuggling, and then it went up in the subsequent year and that affected the progress.

We can also look at tab 23 of the evidence that we've provided to you, where data from RJR-Macdonald shows a considerable decline in prevalence between 1988, prior to the Tobacco Products Control Act, and then increasing with the 1994 decrease in tobacco taxes.

Mr. Greg Thompson: I have one other question. We're going to have Rob Parker of the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council come in to speak to us this morning to present their point of view. What kind of pressure do you believe that organizations like his can put on the government? How can they get the ear of government? Is it simply that it's big business and there's a lot of money at stake? Is there any opportunity for you to comment on that, Rob, Cynthia, and Gilles as well?

Mr. Rob Cunningham: Tobacco companies recognize that other people can have more credibility in speaking to parliamentarians and the public than themselves. That's why they took the initiative to have the Alliance for Sponsorship Freedom created. If we look at the lobbyist registration, there's a link specifically to the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council. The industry provided the money. It was a tobacco industry public relations firm, Edelman Worldwide, that did the operational support for the alliance. They were able, through misinformation, to help make a highly political issue out of sponsorship and to affect the contents of the Tobacco Act and indeed this bill.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Maybe they're stronger lobbyists than your group, with a little more money behind them to get their—

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Lépine: I agree with Mr. Cunningham. A few moments ago, the lady was asking us if it was a legislative problem or a matter of lobbying. When the time came to make seat belts mandatory, we were able to pass legislation easily. Passing legislation is not a problem, but when you are dealing with a lobby that is far, far stronger than you are, supported by very strong financial interests, you are limited and you have a lot to deal with. As Members of Parliament who want to take action against the tobacco manufacturers, you are at war with them when you attack them with the law. When you decided to make seat belts mandatory, you were not at war with many people, and you passed legislation to that effect. When common sense wins, you must be able to pass legislation, no matter what it may be.

In his book, Mr. Cunningham pointed out quite rightly that the American Congress had tabled 196 bills, but never passed a single one of them. It's not because it wasn't smart or a good idea to pass anti-smoking legislation, it was because the lobbying is very, very strong. You are up against people who have resources, staff and ways of painting a rosy picture for us, saying that they bring in money, that they stimulate the economy here in Quebec, that they are making a contribution to Quebec and Canada, which isn't the case. These people have huge amounts of money to make you believe things that are totally ridiculous.

[English]

The Chair: Madame Picard, I think that's the end of Mr. Thompson's questions.

[Translation]

Ms. Pauline Picard: I would just like to make a comment. I completely agree with you, Mr. Lépine. However, since we have let tobacco companies sponsor sports and cultural events, we must be aware of the habits and the economic spin-offs that these sponsorships have created. We know that half of the $60 million in sponsorship money that tobacco companies pay out in Canada is directed to Quebec. They have supported events that are very important to Quebec's economy, because they provide spin-offs for Montreal and a number of other places in the province.

We realize that it makes no sense to let the tobacco companies keep on sponsoring these events, particularly the sporting and cultural events, because we know that tobacco products are very harmful, but we can't turn everything upside down and shake everything up and ban tobacco sponsorships overnight. The organizers of these events are aware of this, and they themselves have asked us to find other sources for them, and they say they are willing to agree to this. We realize that it makes no sense to have du Maurier associated with tennis and so on and so forth. But when we decided to say that it was all over, we did have to give the organizers some ways to keep on supporting their sports and cultural events. The general public also supported that.

• 1025

I look at what Quebec has done, and I also look at the federal government's efforts. It has tried to satisfy some of these people, because it realized that we couldn't shake up this entire sector of the economy. Both the provinces and the federal government truly want to stamp out smoking throughout Canada, but when you change any situation, there always is a shakeup.

The Chairman: Mr. Lépine.

Mr. Gilles Lépine: Ms. Picard, I completely share your point of view, but I have to make a comparison between Le Cirque du Soleil and the Quebec City summer festival. The Cirque du Soleil turned down tobacco sponsorships, whereas the Quebec City summer festival took the easy way out and took that money.

As the Director of Student Sports, perhaps I could take tobacco sponsorships for all the young people who need to play sports at school. But then, what would people think of me? As a teacher, I would probably end up in front of the firing squad for doing that. So, I have to find some other ways of getting support. Once it's accepted, as you said, once you let it happen, once you let the tobacco industry sponsor events, you have a problem to solve.

We can't change things overnight, but I think we have to be very determined and tell ourselves that we are going to do it, we are going to change things. There are things going on now that are unacceptable, and just because we let them happen for a few years, that doesn't mean that they should continue.

I agree with you. We must find reasonable ways of solving the problem, we have to set reasonable deadlines, but they have to be firm. You are our representatives, you speak on our behalf. It's up to you to help us continue the fight by setting very clear limits, which by the way is what we said about the amendments.

The Chairman: Ms. Picard, do you want to conclude?

Ms. Pauline Picard: Yes. In Quebec, thanks to the compensation fund that was set up, there will be a total ban on sponsorships in two years. We gave them other forms of support. We set up a compensation fund, paid for by tobacco taxes. That's why the deadline is shorter.

The organizers of these events are very satisfied and feel relieved, because they too have a professional conscience. They are relieved that they can go back and find other sponsors who do not get kids hooked on cigarettes.

[English]

Ms. Cynthia Callard: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak to this.

The Chair: Sure, for about a minute.

Ms. Cynthia Callard: It's just that while I have problems with the bill, one thing that is important is that I don't think it's so far apart from where many Canadians would like to be.

I think it's the collective failure of us as legislators, health educators and others in creating a public understanding that sponsorship isn't about keeping these important events alive. Tobacco promotions or sponsorships are about promoting. So while I have criticisms of the bill, I have to acknowledge our role in the failure to communicate the problem effectively and I have to acknowledge the fact that Parliament, which has to meet everyone's needs, is in a bit of a box.

Where I'm coming from is the fact that we need some help in creating that understanding over the next couple of years so that we do have better legislation three or four years down the road. That's why I'm hoping that we'll have a more thorough study later on, without the context of a bill, whereby we can look at tobacco marketing problems and youth smoking problems and find solutions that are charter-proof and effective.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

And thank you to all three of you. Our time is up. I want to thank you for your observations and your frank dialogue.

Monsieur Lépine, I know that while everybody has a lot of money to do a lot of lobbying, the fact that there are people around the table who were listening and agreeing with you is an indication that either that lobbying isn't as monopolistic in terms of the time it has for legislators or that you have just as good an opportunity to have an impact on legislators around the table and in the House.

We're going to proceed to the next group.

We'll take about two minutes for a break as people switch over.

• 1029

• 1034

The Chair: Colleagues, we have before us two other representatives, one from the Coalition québécoise pour le contrôle du tabac, Monsieur Louis Gauvin, and one from Info-tabac, Monsieur Denis Côté. Both of them are co-ordinators of their respective organizations.

[Translation]

Mr. Gauvin, Mr. Côté, like the other witnesses, you have five minutes to state your position. We prefer to move to questions as quickly as possible so as to encourage dialogue between witnesses and Members of Parliament.

Mr. Louis Gauvin (Coordinator, Quebec Coalition for Tobacco Control): Could I ask a question, Mr. Chairman?

• 1035

[English]

Yesterday I was told I had about 10 to 15 minutes for my presentation.

The Chair: It must have been a defect in the translation. You know what it is about these telephone lines, Monsieur Gauvin, sometimes one doesn't know anymore. There are people who interfere in them all the time.

Voices: Oh, oh.

The Chair: However, Monsieur Gauvin, if you find that your presentation will take you a little longer, may I advise both you and Monsieur Côté that we'll compensate with fewer questions. I'm going to give you about an hour's time—actually, a little bit less, because the person who was to present with you, Monsieur Lépine, presented with the other group, so I switched that time slot over. Okay?

Mr. Louis Gauvin: That's very kind of you. I thank you.

The Chair: So we'll go to just about 11.15. If you think you need 10 minutes—

[Translation]

Mr. Côté, do you need ten minutes or will five minutes, be enough?

Mr. Denis Côté (Coordinator, Info-tabac): There are two parts to my presentation. The first part includes some transparencies, which will be useful for both presentations. I'm going to use the overhead projector. This part may take five minutes, while Info-tabac's presentation will take at least five minutes. I'll try not to go too far over the five-minute mark.

The Chairman: I'll give you ten minutes each. Is that all right? Mr. Côté, you're first.

Mr. Denis Côté: I'm just going to make a few remarks to introduce Info-tabac, and then I will move right on to the transparencies. That way, if I'm interrupted, at least I will have given the visual presentation.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for having us before the committee. Info-tabac is a non-profit organization that was founded in 1994. Our goal is to encourage dissemination of information about smoking by the Quebec media. With the Quebec media, in particular the French media, we realize just how important the sponsorship issue is. Indeed, the Quebec media, particularly the French media, has a strong bias in favour of tobacco sponsorship, and all efforts to discourage smoking suffer because of this. The sooner we get through the sponsorship problem, the sooner the Quebec Francophone media will give us a better press on other important aspects of anti-smoking efforts.

Our organization has published a monthly newsletter since November 1996, which by the way is sent to all members of Parliament. We have an Internet site. Our main source of funding is the Quebec Department of Health.

I'm going to move immediately to the visual presentation, and depending on the amount of time I have after that, I will continue Info-tabac's presentation on Bill C-42.

Here are some photos that were taken at the Montreal International Jazz Festival. Here is a photo of a package du Maurier cigarettes, at the bottom on the right hand side. See how the entire stage and the advertising use the same colour and lettering as the package. All the advertising and the entire stage reminds smokers of their cigarettes.

It's the same thing here for this other sponsorship. Yet this isn't even a Canadian event. It's the Winfield Formula I Team, Jacques Villeneuve's team. Since there is a Québécois driver on the international scene, the company is taking advantage of that to launch a brand of cigarettes that wasn't being sold in Canada, the Winfields. You see the ads nearly everywhere, all year long. Here's an example, in a corner store, on a floor, in a restaurant, on the bus, nearly everywhere.

• 1040

Here is a picture of the du Maurier Open. Once again, the same red as the Jazz Festival. All the colours are the same as the cigarette package. Even the ballboys and ballgirls have to wear uniforms in the same colours.

I myself was the editor of Tennis Magazine for five years. I was indirectly involved in sponsorships, and I saw how Imperial Tobacco was gradually taking control over tennis.

All these photos were taken in 1998, mostly this summer. Here's a picture of the Players Grand Prix in Trois-Rivières. Again, the volunteers have to wear a Tee-shirts with a Players logo on the back. These are the drivers from the Players team at the top. As you can see, the kids find it fascinating. Here's a cigarette display at the top, on the left hand side, with the sponsorship just above it. You can see the town of Trois-Rivières' pennants; the thing you see the most is the cigarette brand.

Now let's go back to Rothmans, Benson & Hedges. This is the Benson & Hedges International. They sponsor fireworks at an amusement park for teenagers in Montreal called La Ronde. As you can see, they always use the same lettering and the same colour as on the cigarette packs. It's as if you're in the package environment.

Now I'm going to show you some cigarette advertising that goes back to before the ban. At the time, in the 1980s, cigarette companies could run as many ads as they wanted to, however they wanted to. As you can see, the advertising style is very similar to what remained, that is to say, lifestyle advertising, racing cars, snowmobiles, happy people, enthusiastic slogans.

Here are two other ads. They were not placed beside each other in magazines. I set them up this way so I could give two examples at once. Here you see—

[The Editor: Inaudible]— That was Belvedere. Cross-country skiing on the other side, sports once again. Here you have Craven A golfing and Export 'A' adventure. It's very similar to the current ads used for Export 'A' sponsorships. The difference is that the package is no longer in the advertisement; but the brand is still there. When smokers buy their cigarettes, they don't ask for "some cigarettes" or "tobacco": they ask for Export 'A's or Players. The brand name becomes synonymous with the packaging.

Finally, we have some tennis from Players. This isn't a sponsorship ad, it's a pure cigarette ad, when the companies could run any ads that they wanted to. Here they are associating their cigarettes with tennis. There's a hot-air balloon on the other side. As you can see, there is no package in the Craven A ad. It's not necessary. People know that Craven As are cigarettes. They base their advertising, both of their brand and of smoking, on associating Craven A with a pleasant activity.

I'm going to go back there for the next part.

• 1045

We sent you a package in the mail, which you must have received, that included two articles from the Quebec Council on Tobacco and Health, both in English and in French. One is entitled, "What is the Purpose of Tobacco Industry Sponsorship?" while the other is entitled, "Why Should We Impose Canada-Wide Restrictions on Tobacco Sponsorships Immediately?" Both these articles are very short and very simple. We kept them to two pages so that they would be faster to read, since you are very busy people. With all due respect, we would like you to read them. These are very important matters that are being looked at these days. I won't go over these articles, because I might need half-an-hour to explain them to you. I'll leave it to you to take them into consideration.

Info-tabac is opposed to Bill C-42. In our view, there is no justification for it. The situation today is the same as it was a year or a year-and-a-half ago, when the bill was studied. Organizers had the same limitations. It was also the same thing in 1985-86. The issue has been debated twice, and people on both sides made their views known. The tobacco industry people had far greater resources to do so than we did. Both times, the government eventually said, "No, we are banning sponsorships." Once, it said so almost unanimously, and last year, it said so with a very large majority. Only the Bloc Québécois was opposed because there was no mechanism for providing compensation.

The last time, you gave the events two seasons to make the necessary adjustments, while the cigarette companies had to remove their conventional advertising almost immediately. As soon as the bill received royal assent, they had to take down their signs, whereas the events had two summers to make the adjustment, the summer of 1997 and the summer of 1998.

Postponing it for two years would be telling people that anti-smoking efforts aren't that serious and that anti-smoking legislation can be put off if you lobby a little. The case of Quebec is quite special. Quebec needed a step like the one that should have been implemented on October 1st, which would have done away with nearly 70% of all advertising, and so the events would have been much more interested in the Government of Quebec's compensation plan, which is quite sufficient.

The compensation plan offers $12 million per year, while the organizations are receiving—Quebec members have a list at the end—approximately $9 million. The government has more money than it needs to compensate them all if it wanted to. The money is already there because the taxes are retroactive to February of last year. So, if there had been pressure, there certainly would have been a quick agreement between the Department of Health and the organizations. I was very pleased to hear Ms. Picard say that they were interested, because we do not talk to them very often.

The Chairman: Mr. Côté, we are running out of time. We have your testimony and the amendments that you are suggesting. We could get back to this speech later. I would like to move on immediately to Mr. Gauvin.

Mr. Louis Gauvin: Ladies and gentlemen, committee members, thank you for inviting us to appear before the committee so we can give you our point of view.

Tobacco sponsorship is currently the main way of promoting cigarettes, and I think that we just saw some very eloquent examples of this. It is an excellent replacement for direct lifestyle advertising, with the advantage for the industry of not having to include warnings about the harmful effects of tobacco products.

As we just saw, this form of promotion often includes marketing elements that attract young people, such as the rebellious, red slogans of Winfield cigarettes, which are associated with Jacques Villeneuve, the young, attractive models and captivating entertainment, what's known as the Export 'A' extreme sports series, which you currently see all over the place.

Often the events being sponsored are just used as excuses to advertise tobacco and were actually held a long time ago, or in areas far, far away from the target audience. I believe that you can still find adds in the Montreal region for the beach volleyball tournament in Wasaga Beach, Ontario, which is a beautiful beach on the Georgian Bay. I've been there several times. But I don't think Montrealers would head off one morning to watch a beach volleyball tournament in Wasaga Beach. I'd be surprised.

• 1050

According to the study done by ACNielson, which was released yesterday by Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada, advertising tobacco sponsorships on television, radio and large billboards is a form of conventional advertising.

In Quebec, the tobacco companies spend more on advertising than in all other provinces of Canada. Should this come as a surprise to us? Over the past four years, the tobacco industry has spent $1,14 per Quebecker for conventional advertising, as compared with 67 cents for all of Canada, a 70% difference.

We are the tobacco companies' favourite target, and we are not happy about this. We are well aware that 90% of all smokers begin smoking when they are young, and that the tobacco industry needs to recruit these young people to make up for the smokers who die or those who stop smoking so that they can maintain their sales. We also know that sponsorship advertising contains various elements that appeal to young people.

Thus we can deduce that tobacco companies think Quebec is a very promising pool of future smokers. In all, their investments seem to be paying off, since Quebec has the highest rate of young smokers in Canada, some 38%. A while ago, someone was asking if the decrease in prices had had an effect on consumption; that's exactly the link we are seeing. Over five years, between 1991 and 1996, the number of young smokers doubled in Quebec, while the decrease in tobacco taxes began in early 1994. In Quebec, some 20,000 young people under 18 years of age currently begin smoking every year.

For all these reasons, the 70 organizations that belong to our coalition have taken the stance that all promotion of tobacco products must be completely banned. In our view, it is a immoral and shameful that our governments are still allowing the promotion of an unnecessary, deadly product, one that causes death of half the people who regularly use it.

The Government of Quebec recently approved a number of measures to limit the promotion of tobacco. The National Assembly passed Bill 444 on June 17 of this year. This legislation clearly improves matters in Quebec, and contains the following provisions regarding tobacco sponsorship: in two years, promotion of tobacco sponsorship will be restricted; as of October 1, the year 2000, it will be allowed only on the actual site of the event, only for the duration of the event, and in adult publications; within five years, all direct or indirect forms of tobacco sponsorship will be banned. The act sets a ceiling on the number of events that the tobacco industry can sponsor and a ceiling on their budget; it restricts sponsorships to contracts that have already been signed, and orders that related expenditures cannot exceed current levels; and finally, in the next two years, event organizers—as you now know—can opt for government grants to replace tobacco sponsorships. For this purpose, a 12- or 13-million dollar fund was set up.

Starting this fall, these measures will encourage Quebec events to give up tobacco sponsorships, which will help prevent a new "crisis" in Quebec for event organizers just before the restrictions come into effect.

Although these measures represent an important gain for public health in Quebec, they resulted from a compromise and a step backward compared with the original version of the bill, which allowed only two years before a total ban on sponsorships.

If I raise this point, it is because the Quebec bill is far from perfect and because we support any additional strengthening of restrictions on tobacco sponsorship promotion, such as the federal measures that should have come into effect on October 1st this year.

As drafted, the federal bill does not improve the situation in Quebec in any way. In fact, this bill would only deprive us of substantial restrictions on sponsorships over the next two years. The provision prohibiting tobacco sponsorships in five years does not concern us, since the Quebec bill already includes that measure.

It is therefore on behalf of our 710 member organizations and in the interests of the health of all young Quebeckers that we are opposed to Bill C-42 as it stands.

We are aware, however, that the Government of Canada intends to pass this bill, despite the reservations expressed by the health community, and to do so as quickly as possible, it would appear, given the speed with which it is being moved through the legislative process.

• 1055

Like our colleagues at the national level, we are saying that if the government is determined to pass this bill, it should at least amend it in order to strengthen the health objectives.

To begin with, the legislation needs to contain measures to reduce the number of tobacco sponsorships and the money spent on them as the new deadline approaches. Otherwise, the same circumstances that led to increased dependence on cultural and sports events for tobacco companies will result in the deadline again being postponed. In sponsorship too, dependence increases with use.

Secondly, the bill should be consolidated so as to better protect the public interest against the industry's able attempts to get around the spirit of the legislation.

If this bill is not to be withdrawn, we recommend the following amendments: the extension period should come into effect on October 1st, 1998, which appears to have been announced by Ms. Caplan earlier, when I was not in the room; a ceiling should be established for spending in any sponsorship contract and for other promotional expenditures by the tobacco industry; point-of-sale promotion of tobacco sponsorship should be prohibited; sponsorship promotion should be limited to Canadian events for which promotion contracts were already signed as of April 25th, 1997—I believe that there have also been amendments to this effect—all indirect promotion of tobacco products should be banned, such as the use of a brand name on non-tobacco products and services and the promotion of these products and services.

You may have heard that there was recently talk of marketing a Benson & Hedges coffee in England and that health groups in that country were strongly opposed; we can understand why. We also recommend that tobacco sponsorship promotion should be subject to rules similar to those governing direct advertising, for example, health warnings should be included on any promotion; and finally, tobacco sponsorship promotion should be limited to the potential clientele of the events in question.

In conclusion, we hope that, in the little time granted for the study of this issue, you will do everything possible to examine and support the improvements proposed by the health groups. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Gauvin. Let us go directly to questions. Mr. Hill.

Mr. Grant Hill: Thank you for your presentation. I asked the other witnesses two questions, of which the first was: does this bill really have more teeth, as the government is saying? Do the proposed amendments make the bill stricter than it was before?

Mr. Louis Gauvin: Are you referring to Bill C-71 or to the bill that was in force before the Supreme Court ruling?

Mr. Grant Hill: The previous legislation, Bill C-71.

Mr. Louis Gauvin: Denis, I will let you answer.

Mr. Denis Côté: The present provisions of Bill C-71 complement Quebec's Bill 444 very well. In our opinion, it would be highly surprising if Bill C-42 stayed on the Order Paper. The restrictions to come into effect in two years would come into effect with two weeks' notice. Tobacco advertising would plummet almost overnight by 70 to 80%, if not more, across the country. Event organizers in Quebec would run to Health Minister Rochon and tell him that they like his compensation plan and that they want to meet with him, which is not the case at present.

By postponing enforcement of stricter provisions by two years, the government is creating a situation where 200,000 people can say that they will stop smoking in two years but that they will continue to smoke as much, if not more, until that time. The impact of this legislation will be felt when the landscape changes, and the landscape could change significantly right away if the provisions of Bill C-71 were enforced.

The Chair: Mr. Gauvin.

Mr. Louis Gauvin: In French, as in English, we use the expression

[English]

one step forward, two steps back,

[Translation]

depending on the order you put it in. That is sort of what this bill is doing. There is an improvement in the sense that a total sponsorship ban was not included in Bill C-71, but it does appear in Bill C-42. That is the step forward. The two steps backward are that we are delaying the start of the change in the present situation by two years. The October 1 date is pushed back two years. An extension is being given. There is no ceiling being placed on the number of events sponsorships or on the budget involved.

• 1100

We know that the tobacco industry is very clever, and I believe that we can reasonably expect that the industry will continue, over the next five years, to be involved in cultural and sports events across Canada and that the number of events sponsorships will rise from the present 200 or 300 to 2,000 or 3,000. When the government wants to bring in a total ban on sponsorship in five years, 3,000 groups will come to Parliament Hill and say that they can no longer survive without tobacco sponsorships. That is what we fear, and this bill opens the door to that possibility.

Mr. Grant Hill: On the international level, where does this bill put Canada compared to other countries that have anti-tobacco legislation?

Mr. Denis Côté: Our country may be among the 20% of countries that have gone furthest in this area, but it is exactly where it was in 1987-88. There has been no improvement over the past 11 years. It was mentioned earlier that Canada is a world leader in the anti-tobacco fight. In fact, I would say that Canada is a world leader in sponsorships.

Later, you will hear from representatives of the sponsorship freedom rally, an organization that is remote-controlled by a public relations firm called Edelman Worldwide, which has the international contract for British American Tobacco sponsorships and is located in Montreal. So there is a small group of people in Montreal, that the public is not aware of, whose job is to increase tobacco use around the world. The Canadian government still has a long way to go before it deserves to be called world leader or one of the most advanced nations in the fight against tobacco.

The Chair: Madam Picard.

Ms. Pauline Picard: I would like you to clarify something, Mr. Côté. You say that we are currently in the same situation as in the early 1980s. But the advertising that we were seeing 10 or 15 years ago on television, in the newspapers, on posters and on billboards along the Trans-Canada Highway or Autoroute 20, has disappeared.

Mr. Denis Côté: That is true, but it has all been replaced by sponsorships. We no longer see the cigarette package, but we see the cigarette brand and the package colours. For example, Players always uses blue, du Maurier, red, etc. The image is always there for smokers and for the public in general. Everyone knows that du Maurier is a cigarette brand and when we see an advertisement for du Maurier, we think about cigarettes or smoking. It makes tobacco use more commonplace and more acceptable.

Another reason we can say that we are at the same point now as we were 10 years ago is that, in 1988, the government had banned tobacco sponsorships. I no longer remember what mechanism was used to impose the ban, but it was in place for about two or three years. What the tobacco companies did then was to spin off subsidiaries using the name of their brand, for example Players Ltd., du Maurier Ltd., Matinée, Export 'A' Inc., and these new companies sponsored the events. The tobacco industry invented a loophole for itself.

At least, that is what everyone said. In fact, the wording in the legislation would have made it possible to take the companies to court, but Health Canada preferred to let it ride on the pretext that the tobacco companies could have taken the government to court.

• 1105

Ms. Pauline Picard: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Paradis.

Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi, Lib.): You are not the first witness to point out that there may be ties between sponsors and tobacco companies in the public relations arena. Thank you for your work on these issues and your presentation today.

I do want to reassure you on one point. I used to be president of the Quebec Liberal caucus, and the sponsors who approached us asked from the outset, long before Bill C-71 was passed, for a five-year postponement in order to make the transition. This request therefore did not come after Bill C-71 was passed or out of a desire to draw out the process. The companies asked for this from the beginning, and the pressure put on all politicians was to get a postponement in order to be able to adapt.

I encourage you to remain vigilant, not only with respect to what are called sponsorships, but with respect to many other things as well. Other groups have already pointed out that once the sponsorships are out of the picture, the tobacco companies will certainly try to find other ways of reaching consumers. That is why I invite you to remain vigilant. A number of people have indicated that the companies would certainly work hard to find other effective means of promoting cigarettes. Perhaps you should draw our attention to what some of those means may be.

I have one question for you. We are told that cigarettes are a major cause of death every year. We are the health committee, and when we are talking about death rates, we are also talking about treatment and care before death. At Info-tabac, do you have any idea of the health care costs across the country for people who, for example, have lung cancer caused by tobacco use?

Mr. Denis Côté: In Quebec, it is called simply disease management. I say management and not cure, because between 10,000 and 12,000 Quebeckers—about 30 a day—die from tobacco-related diseases. The treatment for management of these diseases costs about $1 million. The figure for Canada as a whole is about three times that. There are other expenses associated with the loss of productivity. People who die at 40, 45 or 50 years of age, or even at 60, 65 or 75, would have been useful to society for another 10, 20, 30 or 40 years, not to mention the loss for the families. Who doesn't know a family that has been affected?

Mr. Denis Paradis: You give the figure of $1 billion a year for the cost of treatment, in Quebec alone, for those whose lung cancer may have been caused by cigarettes. Is there some study or something that gives detail on these calculations? Where did this figure of $1 billion a year come from? This probably includes the number of days in the hospital, drugs, etc. Is there any documentation on this?

Mr. Denis Côté: Yes, a number of studies have been done. I do not have them with me. I could send them to you, Sir, if you wish. That is not my field. My specialty is advertising. I would therefore not be in a position to do more than send you the documents.

[English]

The Chair: If you wouldn't mind, then, we'll see that the clerk makes it available to everyone.

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Gauvin: The most recent study on costs was done by Neil Collishaw, who worked for a long time for Health Canada and is now with the World Health Organization; I think the study was done in the 1980s. It was updated at the end of the eighties.

The Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse prepared the most recent study for Canada as a whole and compiled a number of other studies. I will send you their study. It also includes, as Mr. Côté said, figures on productivity losses.

Mr. Denis Paradis: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Paradis.

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

• 1110

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I would like to ask Mr. Côté a question about his recommendations for amending the bill. Is it true that the first three recommendations are contained in Ms. Caplan's remarks? And are there major differences between your other recommendations and those of the Canadian Cancer Society?

Mr. Denis Côté: I can answer for Info-tabac, if you wish. Where the Canadian Cancer Society is concerned, I do not know.

In the presentation that was given out to you, we proposed an alternative plan that would make it possible to reduce advertising and reduce abuse; this plan does not call for the restrictions to come into force on October 1st. As Mr. Gauvin mentioned, the government seems determined to go ahead. We have therefore devised a plan that would work for the major event sponsorships but would reduce the advertising as much as possible and send clear messages to everyone, including organizers, tobacco companies and the public to the effect that action is being increased. This plan calls for advertising only by the organizers and not by the cigarette companies. At present, when you see an advertisement for an event, you might think that it comes from the organization in charge of the event, but it can also come from the cigarette company. We are asking that only the organization responsible for advertising and running te event be able to advertise.

We are also asking for health warnings at least at the point of sale, since the point of sale is directly associated with the sale of cigarettes.

In addition, we are asking for a ban on promotional items such as banners, flags, umbrellas and clothing. A cigarette brand could be linked to the name of the event on signs at the point of sale, in printed material and on radio and television, which is already a lot.

If you ask cigarette companies or organizations if they prefer our plan to Bill C-71, they will jump at our plan because it is very generous. It was designed to take into account the fact that the government wants to please the cigarette companies. What is banned is abusive advertising, such as advertising an event long before or after it takes place. New sponsorships are also prohibited.

It also contains another element that no one seems to have thought of, which is a ban on inserting the name of the cigarette brand in the title of the event. That suggestion would come into effect on January 1, 2000. This leaves the Omnium du Maurier another season and would mean that in the year 2000 the publicity would have to read something like: “du Maurier presents the Canada International Tennis Championship.”

These are the main differences between what we are recommending and what Ms. Caplan announced. These points are explained in both English and French, with notes, in our brief. I obviously cannot spend a half-hour here discussing this.

The Chairman: Mr. Gauvin, you have the last 30 seconds.

Mr. Louis Gauvin: To answer the question by Ms. Wasylicia-Leis, your position is based on that of the Canadian Cancer Society. I would like to draw your attention to two points supported by that position.

First, the bill under consideration does not prohibit indirect promotion, such as using a brand name for products having no association with tobacco, for example caps and tee-shirts, as long as they are not intended for young people or attractive to them. But young people today are growing up so quickly; probably their father's cap fits them and they will be able to buy that sort of thing. The same is true for tee-shirts, running shoes and jeans.

We have seen this in Europe; the tobacco industry has gotten around bans on advertising in France by advertising on products designed like cigarette packages and putting their brand name on those products. That is certainly a loophole which will be widely used, and already is to a limited extent today because advertising is banned, but which will be exploited a great deal more.

• 1115

The second point concerns point-of-sale advertising. If you go to the cornerstore, you can see that the whole wall behind the counter looks like a giant cigarette package. The rate of spontaneous purchases in stores is extremely high. You often find yourself surrounded often by all sorts of little items that do not cost very much and can be bought rapidly with cash. That represents an important part of retail sales.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[English]

Monsieur Greg Thompson, you have the honour of the last question.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again, thank you for being so kind to the fifth party.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Côté and Mr. Gauvin, it's nice to have you with us.

My comment and question has to do with the absolute power of the tobacco interests to put out their message. My question is going to be built around the framework of a study they did at one time which is so bizarre, so absurd, that it's hard to believe they would do it.

At one time they commissioned a study which was to come out with a cost-benefit analysis for society in terms of smoking. Although we know that it's factual that 40,000 Canadians a year die because of smoking, they came up with what they called their death-benefit analysis.

Voices: Oh, oh.

Mr. Greg Thompson: I'm hoping the translation will get the message through. I apologize for not being able to dialogue in French.

The death-benefit analysis, according to the smoking folks, went something like this: that because Canadians are dying from smoking and many of us are dying young because of smoking and not living to our full life expectancy, the cost benefit to the government is enormous. If you're dying early and others around the table are going to die early because of smoking, the net cost to the Government of Canada is going to be less.

In other words, we're going to, according to them, draw less old age pension, less Canada pension and other health benefits because we have died early because of the results of their product. They actually commissioned this study and paid for this study. It's so bizarre it's hard to believe.

But really, the point I'm making is about the power of these people to promote such a bizarre study and attempt to endorse it. It almost defies logic. That is what you people are up against.

Two years ago, I think, they told us that at that time they spent a minimum of $120 million on advertising. I think that figure is up around $150 million today. How do you counter that type of power and that type of insane, bizarre behaviour on the part of the tobacco companies?

The Chair: Your enunciation is very good there, Mr. Thompson.

I was going to ask what government that happened under, but—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Well, Joe, I'm not being—

The Chair: Monsieur Gauvin.

Mr. Greg Thompson: —political here because it has nothing to do with the colour of the government, and I think you mentioned that. Much of what the present government does, I have supported, but we're all victims of a very powerful lobby group despite who may be in power from time to time.

The Chair: I'll give you a chance to repeat your message.

Monsieur Gauvin.

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Gauvin: I apologize for my accent in English, Mr. Thompson. I think that we can say that

[English]

if you have to lie and you want to be believed for this lie, tell big lies.

Voices: Oh, oh.

Mr. Louis Gauvin: Don't tell small ones, tell big ones. This is a big one.

The study that you're talking about is the study by Mr. André Reynault, the world-renowned economist, and Monsieur Vidal. It was launched in 1994, if I remember correctly.

At about the same time I was in France, in Paris, at the ninth World Conference on Smoking and Health, and there was also an economist in France who launched the same study there, maybe because it was the site of the World Conference on Smoking and Health.

• 1120

Now, how do you counter this kind of study? In Quebec, we had Pierre Fortin, a well-known economist in Quebec and in Canada, who, with a few of his colleagues, was asked by the Government of Quebec to do a study on the positive or negative consequences of the tobacco law in Quebec. What they said, after a long study, was that it was a net gain for public health, for government finances and for the whole economy.

Last year we met with the Liberal caucus from Quebec here in Ottawa. Pierre Fortin came with us and he told us that if had something to say it would be this: close down the tobacco industry in Canada, that it would be very good politics for jobs because the money people wouldn't spend on tobacco, which is a highly taxed product, would go somewhere else where products are less taxed, so it would be better for the economy.

But I guess people believe big lies, so sometimes we lose, sometimes we win.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Remember what Adolf Hitler and his mind police said about the lie: the bigger the lie—

The Chair: Mr. Thompson, we're at the end of time.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you for reminding us of the historical perspective.

Monsieur Gauvin and Monsieur Côté, on behalf of all my colleagues, let me say that I appreciate you having come here. I know you must have left rather early this morning and had a long trip, especially Monsieur Côté. Thank you very much for taking the trouble to come and share your views and your amendments with us.

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Gauvin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: We have one more and I want to start right away, ladies and gentlemen. Don't get up and leave—oh, all right, you have two minutes.

• 1122

• ll25

The Chair: Colleagues, can we get back to order, please?

We'll begin immediately with Mr. Rob Parker from the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council.

Mr. Parker, I think you're familiar with some of the rules we have here. I've seen you here since early this morning. If you can take five minutes, it would be great. If you need a little more just keep in mind that we'll take it off the overall total. You probably have a little more latitude this morning because you've ended up being the only person before us, but I remind you and all colleagues that what the committee prefers is to hear a brief synopsis of your position and then go directly into questions and answers—the truth will out much more clearly. You can begin right now.

Mr. Robert R. Parker (President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members, both for the invitation and for that explanation. I do not propose to abuse you in a time sense. I will say as somebody else did that I didn't have time to write a shorter opening statement, so I'm not going to read the whole thing. I will just cherry-pick for a couple of minutes and then move to questions. Obviously I'd be happy to respond on any of the points raised in the full text.

I'm the president and CEO of the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council. The CTMC is the industry association representing Canada's major tobacco manufacturers, Rothmans, Benson and Hedges, RJR-Macdonald and Imperial Tobacco. We represent them on matters of common but non-competitive interest.

Given the known and inherent risks of tobacco consumption, the industry agrees that the product as well as its marketing, promotion and sale are legitimate subjects for government regulation. Those risks also justify continuing programs by government to persuade Canadians not to use the product.

Debates about tobacco regulation therefore do not involve any disagreement from us about whether tobacco should be regulated but about how. The criteria for setting standards are or should be the same in this area as in any other that's the subject of legislation or regulation, that is, that they are fair, legal, effective in theory and practice and justified on a cost-benefit basis.

Some elements of this bill and of the Tobacco Act which it will amend meet those tests. Others, regrettably, do not. Members of this committee will be aware that the Tobacco Act's predecessor, the TPCA—Tobacco Products Control Act—had significant sections struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1995. The TPCA was successfully challenged by our member companies; the Tobacco Act is the subject of a second challenge now underway.

• 1130

For the record, in case any of my comments before you lead to misunderstanding, that challenge will continue and will include all of these amendments, whatever their final form. That's primarily because of what we believe to be the extreme unjustified and unconstitutional restrictions placed on the legitimate rights of manufacturers of a legal product to communicate with their adult customers.

Before I ask for your questions, I will just deal with one item, which is the possibility of an amendment that might impose an expenditure cap. I believe the parliamentary secretary said in her opening remarks that there were some difficulties and invited witnesses to address it.

To deal with the question of expenditure caps on sponsorship, in theory there are a number of ways that this could be done: by company, by event, by individual, by team, etc. I would simply like to point out to you some of the difficulties and say that no matter how it was done, it would pose a huge difficulty for sponsors, event organizers and their suppliers, and for government as well. There are several reasons for that.

First, if it's done on an event-by-event basis, it is going to have an unbalanced and unpredictable impact on events of different types depending on the extent to which an individual event is affected by an inability to meet increased prices, which could be for advertising, for prize pools and for all kinds of goods and services they have to supply.

The best example is probably Jacques Villeneuve, whose name has been mentioned here this morning. And as I think most people will recognize, his compensation tripled in one year, from $5 million to $15 million. That was brought about by his success on the track, which is entirely unpredictable. With a cap, a tobacco sponsor, on that condition, would have no alternative but to withdraw.

That's exactly what the purpose of those supporting this amendment is: for the terms that are called for in the bill to force tobacco sponsors out of the business. But I would suggest to you that it's not the intention of the bill.

A second aspect of this, and an equally important one, is that sponsors and event organizers have been operating since late spring without any knowledge of such a major and retroactive change. Hundreds of contracts have already been signed with organizers and their suppliers, reflecting what they believe to be the future legal climate. An unknown number of them would have to be cancelled and there would be lawsuits as a result.

So the question I would put to the government through the committee is this: would government would be prepared to indemnify sponsors and event organizers from those legal actions?

The third point is that even if it were done on its simplest basis, which is company by company, the result would unfairly and arbitrarily penalize some events and companies. It would also impose on government's own officials a costly and time-consuming regulatory burden that would self-destruct in two years. Sponsorship expenditures are not easy to categorize, define and measure, and each company approaches the activity differently.

Finally, and overall on this point, the bill, as it stands or as it will be amended, will cancel or severely damage a large number of these events in less than two years. Companies and event organizers know that. They're not about to invest massive new funds on events that by definition are going to be out of business or much smaller in less than two years.

Until they do disappear, however, I would simply suggest to you that it would seem an ultimate kind of silliness to harass them with that sort of regulatory burden and restrictions on the support they have in the time remaining to them.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to your questions.

The Chair: Mr. Hill.

Mr. Grant Hill: Joe, Greg Thompson has a plane to catch, so I would like to let him ask the first question. He has a time constraint.

The Chair: Then you'll take his slot?

Mr. Grant Hill: Yes.

The Chair: Thank you. Greg.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Thank you, Mr. Hill. I really appreciate it. Who says there's not room between the two of us to make some kind of—

An hon. member: Unite the right, eh?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Anyway, I just want to tell the chairman that I haven't had so much fun in committee since Sheila Copps jumped the committee table and chased Sinclair Stevens out of the House of Commons.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Greg Thompson: I don't know how much the chairman has to do with this, but I found it a real interesting morning.

• 1135

Mr. Parker, one of the things I want to comment on is in your second paragraph, where you say, “given the known and inherent health risks of tobacco consumption”. Do you acknowledge, then, that there are 40,000 deaths in Canada as a direct result of smoking your product?

Mr. Robert Parker: I can't say that with certainty, Mr. Thompson. I don't believe anybody can. The statistical study that produced that number is based on a survey of Seventh-day Adventists in southern California in the mid-1970s, I believe, which was extrapolated to the Canadian population.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Well, do you acknowledge that—

Mr. Robert Parker: I can't deny it and I can't confirm it.

Mr. Greg Thompson: —there are some deaths? Have you ever accepted the fact that there's a direct linkage between cancer and the consumption of your product? You've never acknowledged that, to my—

Mr. Robert Parker: That's not true, sir, with respect. I've just said there are very significant health risks associated with tobacco consumption—

Mr. Greg Thompson: Would cancer be one of those?

Mr. Robert Parker: Yes.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Would lung cancer be one of those?

Mr. Robert Parker: Yes.

Mr. Greg Thompson: In other words, if I consume your product there's a risk involved, and that risk could be that it's going to end my life, terminate my life.

Mr. Robert Parker: If you are a smoker you significantly increase your risks of lung cancer. Lung cancer is primarily, not entirely, a smoker's disease.

Mr. Greg Thompson: So you do acknowledge there's a linkage to consumption?

Mr. Robert Parker: And always have, sir.

Mr. Greg Thompson: You've always acknowledged that?

Mr. Robert Parker: Yes.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Okay. If you acknowledge that, why do you continue to promote your product in such a way that it's leading to the deaths of 40,000— Now, you're not acknowledging the 40,000, but why do you continue to promote your product knowing full well it leads to early death? For just about every Canadian who smokes your product it's going to lead to early death through heart disease or lung cancer.

Mr. Robert Parker: I would argue with that statistic, but that's really not relevant to your question.

I think I have two reactions. The first is that my job is not to promote smoking or promote cigarettes. I do represent the manufacturers on policy matters such as limitations on advertising. Do I agree that the promotion of the product should be banned entirely? No, obviously, I do not. Do I agree that there should be limitations on it, regulation on it? I do, as do the manufacturers, and that's because of the health risks.

If the product is so inherently dangerous and terrible, so far beyond any other risks in society, I would think that responsible policy-makers have no choice but to ban it, and that's a very old argument. It's an argument that was used 100 years ago by the pacifist movement about arms manufacturers. It was used 60 years ago by the prohibitionist movement about alcohol distillers and brewers. And it's used today about tobacco companies.

I know there's no way of resolving this in front of this committee, but tobacco companies do not cause and cannot affect the decision to smoke. As long as it is a legal product and the manufacturers are permitted to make and sell the product and compete against one another, we believe they should have the right to communicate—

Mr. Greg Thompson: I don't want to cut you off, Mr. Parker, but we're limited for time here.

There's one point that I want to make because you are representing the manufacturers—

Mr. Robert Parker: Yes, sir.

Mr. Greg Thompson: —and I believe that you are smart enough to accept that in terms of the use of consumer goods it's important that Canadians be educated. Now what I'm referencing here is Senator Kenny's Senate bill, S-13, which would levy 50¢ per carton to be used to educate young Canadians against the inherent dangers of smoking. Would you support that manufacturers' levy?

Mr. Robert Parker: No, sir.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Why not?

Mr. Robert Parker: First of all, because it's a tax on the manufacturers and I believe it's procedurally improper. Would I object to government spending that amount of money on educational programs? No, I would not.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Just back up one minute, Mr. Parker. If that bill was introduced in the House of Commons, it's not up to you to decide whether it's procedurally proper or not.

Mr. Robert Parker: Of course it's not.

Mr. Greg Thompson: For example, the ways and means committee— If suddenly that became a House of Commons bill—let's forget about it being a Senate bill—would you then be in a position to say it would be a wise move to impose that 50¢ per carton levy in the aim of educating young Canadians against the dangers of smoking? Would you then support that?

Mr. Robert Parker: Government itself is in charge of decisions on tax policy and government is in charge of decisions on how those revenues are spent. You would find no criticism from me or the industry on government increasing its spending on education.

• 1140

I would only say this. Governments for the past 10 or 20 years have spent significant amounts of money on education. A lot is spent for youths under the age of 10 through the school system by provincial and federal governments and others. In the last 10 years it has not changed the rate of smoking among Canadians.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Of those jurisdictions that have used this—

The Chair: Your time is up. I'm sorry, but I allowed it to go—

Mr. Greg Thompson: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Hill, for the opportunity. We'll meet again next week.

The Chair: We look forward to having you back on the committee, Mr. Thompson. Thank you.

Madame Picard.

[Translation]

Ms. Pauline Picard: Mr. Parker, I do not agree with your remarks today. Even if only a few lives were saved through regulations prohibiting advertising, it would be worth it. That is all I wanted to add.

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Myers.

[English]

Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Parker, I want to take you to page 2 of your submission, to the fourth paragraph, where you say:

if there were the slightest reliable evidence of any connection between advertising, either of the product or sponsored events, on the decision by anyone to smoke.

And in response to Mr. Thompson, you also said you don't think this can affect the decision of anyone to smoke. I'm wondering on what basis you can say these what I consider to be outrageous statements.

We can agree to disagree here and it's clear you have your lines down pat in terms of how you argue back and such. I quite respect that, but at the same time I'm interested in how you can make this kind of what I consider to be outrageous statement. Because I think it's very clear, at least in my view, that there is a connection. I'd be interested in your response.

Mr. Robert Parker: I'd briefly cite three sources for that conclusion. First, there are about two dozen countries in the world that over the last 20 years have banned advertising sponsorship with the total bans that were talked about earlier. If there were a connection, it would surely be visible in the pattern of smoking prevalence in those countries during that period of time, and people have looked at that, looking for just such a pattern. What they have found is that smoking prevalence—the smoking decision by people—in those countries is all over the place. In some cases, it's up. In some cases, it stayed the same. In other cases, it has gone down.

A second thing to point to is the real-life experiment in North America of the last 35 years, which has cost billions of dollars and has tobacco companies in this country and our neighbour to the south conducting for virtually for all of that period—the ban in Canada being an exception—marketing and advertising programs for tobacco.

What has happened to smoking during that period? It has gone steadily down. The level of prevalence in Canada plateaued about 12 years ago and hasn't changed much since then, but in the U.S. it has continued to decline. In Hong Kong, where there are bans on radio and television advertising but there are still billboards the size of football fields, smoking has fallen over the last 10 years by about one-third, a much better record than Canada achieved with a total ban on advertising.

We accept and agree with restrictions on advertising, but the suggestion that a total ban will affect a decision to smoke just flies in the face of practical experience and theory here and year-round. I know you're constantly given that assertion; you've been given another brick this morning that allegedly supports it, but real life experience doesn't.

With respect to youth smoking, the last major increase in Canada was between 1991 and 1993, when there was an advertising ban and prices were still high and rising. Now, it doesn't make a lot of sense that an advertising ban would persuade people to smoke unless there's some kind of forbidden fruit effect that we don't understand. I think that I referred to that in my statement. But it is the case that the last time we had those two conditions here, smoking by the very youngest groups StatsCan measured went up.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Chairman, I don't mean to prolong the debate.

And I'm not going to enter debate on this matter with you, Mr. Parker, except to say that when you say “real-life experience”, I've taught in the secondary schools of Ontario and I too have some real-life experience with respect to how young people react vis-à-vis smoking and the kinds of things that we're dealing with here.

• 1145

And I sat for 15 years on the health and social services committee of the Region of Waterloo, and I can tell you from a public health point of view, there are also real-life experiences.

I'm not going to change your mind and you're not going to change my mind, but I want to emphasize and simply put out the position that I, too, have real-life experiences and I know that there is a direct relationship. In my mind, it's very clear.

Mr. Robert Parker: Please, Mr. Chairman, if anything I said indicated that I was suggesting the member has not had any experience in that area, that's not what I meant.

Mr. Lynn Myers: No, I didn't take it like that. I just want to give the counterbalance.

Mr. Robert Parker: I simply meant behaviour of populations in nations worldwide.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Parker and Mr. Myers.

We go back to this side, with Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. I'll try to be brief so the Reformers will get their chance.

First, would you agree that sponsorship advertising is targeted to both smokers and non-smokers in order to get them to attend events or watch those events on TV?

Mr. Robert Parker: Yes. It obviously has two purposes. One is the promotion to smokers of the brand. That's why it's done. That's talked about in my comment. The other one is to promote the event, build audiences and build attention.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Just a further elaboration, then, on that same line of questioning: would you agree that sponsorship advertising is targeted to both adults and young people to get them to attend events and/or to watch those events on TV?

Mr. Robert Parker: There are no events sponsored by tobacco companies that have a significant youthful audience in percentage terms. Obviously young people under the legal age to smoke or to buy cigarettes—children—do attend, in some numbers, events like the fireworks show or car races, but the average audiences are older—and must be. The companies constantly get the accusation, but they also constantly reject it. The purpose of this in terms of promotional support for the product is promotion to adult smokers.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: My next question goes back to before I was here in this House. I don't know if anybody was here in 1987— Any members here?

The Chair: This is a fresh committee.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Okay.

Our research shows that the CEO of Imperial Tobacco testified before the Commons committee that the company began its market research surveys with people 15 years of age and over. So my question is, does Imperial Tobacco still do market research today on teenagers aged 15 to 19?

Mr. Robert Parker: I would have to review the testimony, but I think it is done at ages older than 15. At the time that you're talking about, the legal age to smoke was 16, federally and in most provinces, and that's the age group that Imperial surveyed. Since the smoking age has changed, the age of anyone surveyed or interviewed rose. This was covered extensively in the TPCA trial. There is one instance of a piece of marketing research that involved people younger than that, but it did not have anything to do with their smoking preferences or smoking intentions. I can provide you with the full documentation if you're interested.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Roughly when did that change occur?

Mr. Robert Parker: In the legal age?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes.

Mr. Robert Parker: Within the last five or six years, I think. The federal change was perhaps in 1994-95.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I know you've been asked this already, but let me do it again. I think the concern on all of our minds is how you can justify having a tobacco company actually do market research involving teenagers.

Mr. Robert Parker: At the time, the teenagers in question were of an age that made it legal for them to choose to smoke, to buy cigarettes and to be sold cigarettes. No one has ever suggested that it is proper or ethical to do that kind of research on people under that legal age. And despite the accusation, in the absence of evidence, all I can tell you is that I don't know of any such examples.

The Chair: You have 30 seconds, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I guess I'm wondering about the use of teenagers in marketing and—

Mr. Robert Parker: Do you mean in advertisements?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes.

Mr. Robert Parker: For a period of over 25 years, the industry, in its voluntary code and in performance, has employed no models under the age of 25.

The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Paradis.

• 1150

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Paradis: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I would like to thank Mr. Parker for his frankness in answering Mr. Thompson's questions about lung cancer, which is the smokers' disease.

I will start by telling you this. My riding assistant is 44 years old and the mother of four children. She stopped smoking two months ago when she was diagnosed with lung cancer. She is taking morphine right now. I would ask you the same question I asked the other witness: Do you have any idea of the treatment costs for people with lung cancer caused by smoking? That is my first question, Mr. Parker.

[English]

Mr. Robert Parker: The total health costs attributable to smoking-related diseases is a very difficult final figure to determine. It has been attempted by a number of economists in a number of countries around the world, such as the Reynault-Vidal study. One of those gentlemen is a former chairman of the Economic Council of Canada. They attempted to do this, and probably two to three dozen other researchers and academics have done it at various times over the past 10 or 15 years.

That research was done in answer to this question: what is the balance of the cost of smokers to society? We know they pay very high taxes, but do they in fact collectively pay for the costs of treating diseases related to the consumption of tobacco, for which the risk is increased by their consumption? The answer from every one of those that have been done on an economic basis is that smokers are a subsidy to non-smokers. In other words, their taxes paid on the product more than cover the costs related to health treatment.

If you begin adding in social costs such as lost wages because they are unable to work, for example, the argument from the economists is that it is an illegitimate addition to the equation because it's the result of a personal choice as opposed to a societal cost in Canada's case where we have a publicly funded medicare system.

All of the economic studies put the balance of benefit on non-smokers—in other words, a subsidy from smokers. The so-called sociological studies, which add a number of other events in and, we believe, frequently exaggerate their size, go the other way, but those are the arguments from the two sides.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Paradis: Mr. Parker, like my colleague Lynn, I have a lot of difficulty with the fourth paragraph on page 2 of your brief, where you say that there is no link between advertising of either the product or the sponsored event and the decision to smoke. I have a lot of difficulty with that statement. You claim that advertising is more about competition between brands than the decision whether or not to smoke, but this morning we again had a demonstration that your advertising is aimed at a market of young people that you are trying to reach and that you are trying to entice to become cigarette smokers. I can tell you right off the bat that I have a great deal of difficulty with your fourth paragraph on page 2.

I will end my remarks by asking you two questions. If investing in sponsorships does not bring you new smokers or at least help you maintain the number of smokers that you already have, why are you so attached to advertising? If advertising has no positive effects for you, why are you so attached to it? Why are you finding all sorts of ways to try to explain to us that there is no impact and why are you telling us that we should make no changes in that area? Why? That is my first question.

Secondly—

The Chairman: That is your last question.

Mr. Denis Paradis: Yes, but it is a two-part question, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: You have already gone over your allotted time.

Mr. Parker.

• 1155

[English]

Mr. Robert Parker: There are something short of 7 million smokers in Canada, Mr. Chairman—about 6.8 million or 6.9 million, I believe. About 10% of them change brands every year. The business from those who change brands results in net income to the manufacturer of about $220 million. And in the tobacco business, as in any consumer product business, the larger market share you have, the lower your cost base per customer or per item. In other words, an increase in market share is disproportionately profitable; a decrease in market share is disproportionately costly.

What the manufacturers are doing with all of their promotion and marketing—and they are now limited to sponsorship because advertising is de facto banned by the Tobacco Act and was withdrawn immediately on passage of the act—is chasing that $220 million in revenue from switchers.

There was a suggestion, I believe, by one of the earlier witnesses or in a brief—I can't remember—that switchers are actually headed to lighter products, to lower tar and lower nicotine, and that's all that switching is about. Light and ultra-light tar and nicotine products are very poor sellers, less than one-half of 1% of the total market—and that's for all of them put together. The switching between whatever brands they prefer the taste of is a very big business and it's very important economically. That's what the companies are after.

The Chair: Mr. Elley.

Mr. Reed Elley: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm just wondering, Mr. Parker, did you ever work in a tobacco field?

Mr. Robert Parker: No, sir, I didn't.

Mr. Reed Elley: Okay. I have had first-hand experience. I grew up in the tobacco culture of southwestern Ontario, so as a young person there making some quick, easy money, I worked in a tobacco field for a couple of years. I suckered. You know what suckering is.

Of course, at that point, at an early age, my own personal position became that if that was what it did to my hands after I was through suckering this stuff, there was no way under God's heaven I would ever allow that stuff to get into my lungs. So my personal choice was not to smoke and, quite frankly, I'm glad that I made that choice.

With that bit of testimony behind me, I'm interested in the third paragraph of your brief, where you say: that,

The criteria for setting standards are or should be the same in this area as in any other that is the subject of federal legislation or regulation—that is, that they are fair, legal, effective in both theory and practice and justified on a cost-benefit basis.

Then you go on to say, “Some elements of this Bill, and of the Tobacco Act which it will amend, meet those tests.”

I would be very interested to know, from your point of view, what parts of the bill you're actually talking about here.

Mr. Robert Parker: Bill C-42. In the context of sponsorship, it's going to be banned, but the choice is whether to ban it immediately or allow a transition period so event organizers can seek alternate sources of funding. I think that meets the test of reason. And the decision to apply the same rules to all sponsored events rather than treating them differently—I think that meets the test of reason.

And the decision to say there should be, as I believe will happen under the amendment, a firm start date to this, of October 1, which is what we had believed from the outset—the companies and event organizers have generally been operating on that understanding—I think that meets the test of reason.

Overall, is it a common-sense proposal to ban sponsorship entirely? I do not believe that to be the case. I think it materially increases the chances of a piece of legislation once again being struck down by the courts because it is too extreme.

Should there be restrictions on sponsorship? Yes. Should there be restrictions on advertising? Again, yes. Should those be crafted to be reasonable and effective and non-attackable by the courts? I would think nobody more than members of this committee would be in favour of that.

• 1200

But I must tell you that in regard the bill itself, which was passed by a previous Parliament—and this amendment is not central to that—much of the advice that you get from our friends who appeared earlier this morning leads straight in that direction.

Collectively, you would do yourselves, this issue, and everyone involved in it an enormous service if you would obtain from Statistics Canada and independent advisers accurate information on smoking prevalence in Canada. I've heard more nonsense in the last two days about what Canadians—young or old—have allegedly been doing over the last ten years than I've heard in quite a long time.

You've heard the suggestion that smoking increased after taxes went down. It didn't. You've heard the suggestion that smoking decreased when taxes were high. It didn't. Statistics Canada and Health Canada officials are able to tell you that. An accurate understanding of what really is going on in terms of behaviour by smokers and non-smokers would, I think, help you make improved policy decisions.

Mr. Reed Elley: You talk here, Mr. Parker, about this bill being legal. I'd just like to go back to Bill C-71 and the fact that as of October 1 all billboards advertising cigarette products or any kind of advertising that way is illegal. Is your industry now complying and removing all those billboards?

Mr. Robert Parker: No, sir, we're not.

Mr. Reed Elley: So you're going to do this illegally?

Mr. Robert Parker: We are caught in the box that Parliament has a law on its books that says one thing and a clearly stated intention by the government of the day under Bill C-42 to do another thing.

Our individual companies sought guidance from the government on what the intentions were during this period of time. For example, we sought information on the definition of “old” versus “new” events. As you will have observed, that's under change, so that once we were satisfied that we knew what the rules would be, we could say to government and to you and to anyone else that as of October 1 we are voluntarily treating new events as they are to be treated under this bill as amended, assuming it's approved, and old events as they are to be treated.

It would make no economic or legal or regulatory sense, I don't think, to take billboards down on October 1 when everyone is persuaded that they are going to be legal again several weeks later.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madam Minna.

Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to take you back, Mr. Parker, to page 2, because in paragraph 4, first of all, I want to say that I find it rather insulting that you refer to the bill as “zealotry”. But frankly, if it were close to zealotry, it would be a heck of a lot stronger than it is. That's for starters.

Secondly, as my colleagues have tried to say, you state without any doubt that there is no connection between advertising and people starting to smoke. In the first paragraph, you say that you are being denied the legal right to communicate with your adult customers. If in fact advertising does not encourage anybody to start smoking—never mind the switching—and if in fact you are only advertising to adults and for most events, as you claim, your advertising is affecting only adults, not children— Now, I go to the Benson and Hedges event, and I dare you to tell me that this event is not a family event in Toronto. It is fireworks. It is the thing that children live to see—not just adults. That's number one.

Number two, again, if that is the case, why is it that we've seen with earlier presenters great big lifestyle ads about how wonderful life is on top of children's comic books—

Mr. Robert Parker: Excuse me?

Ms. Maria Minna: In the retail stores. Earlier there was a picture that was given—

Mr. Robert Parker: I thought you said “on a comic book”. I'm sorry.

Ms. Maria Minna: On top of. The comics were underneath. It was a great big display about how life is wonderful with whatever the brand was at that time. Other pictures show children in Craven A events playing, advertising their schools. While the industry has said they're not going to do it, they do it. You switch back and forth.

If, in fact, it does not and you do not believe that advertising encourages starting, why is it that you persist in doing lifestyle types of ads near schools, in situations in retail stores where there are children buying products and at events children attend?

• 1205

It seems to me that you're not after the $200 million. That's a drop in the bucket. What you're after is maintaining what is the life of the industry, and that is, recruiting new people.

I would like you to tell me how all of this fits with the two statements, which seem totally contradictory to me given the fact of what you actually do in the field.

Mr. Robert Parker: I'm sorry. I've lost track a little. Which two statements are contradictory?

Ms. Maria Minna: You state clearly that advertising does not encourage people to start smoking.

Mr. Robert Parker: Yes.

Ms. Maria Minna: Then you say you have a legal right to advertise only to your adult customers.

Mr. Robert Parker: That's right.

Ms. Maria Minna: Number one, if it's true that advertising does not encourage starting to smoke and you advertise only to adults to switch, why do you persist in having lifestyle type ads in retail stores on top of children's comic books? Why should you be advertising at all in events like Benson and Hedges, where there are children, families? You should not be allowed to advertise anywhere where kids are if in fact you truly believe that all you want to do is get the adults. It seems to me that your statement about your advertising practices is contradictory. You still have billboards or ads in schools.

Mr. Robert Parker: Not as far as I'm aware. The code the industry has requires they not be located near schools.

But if I may, I'll give you just an implementation difficulty in regard to that. First of all, the people that put up the billboards are not the companies themselves; they are outdoor advertising companies. They are told—and we can present you with the documentation—they are not to be up near schools. Have mistakes been made? You bet they have. Have the billboards come down immediately as soon as the companies are notified? Again, you bet they have.

We are told that tobacco sponsorship advertising, edge-on— There was an example here in Ottawa with a school in the Glebe, where Bronson Avenue, which runs toward the airport, runs right by it. A billboard was sitting parallel to the road so the edge of it faced the school, but it could not be read from the school property or anywhere near it. It was for a sponsored event and was aimed at traffic on Bronson. The suggestion was made this was targeting the kids who attend that high school. The company took the ad down. But I don't think it constituted either targeted advertising at those young people or any promotion of the decision to smoke.

Ms. Maria Minna: But you also stated earlier that your advertising is directed at events for adults, not children—

Mr. Robert Parker: Yes.

Ms. Maria Minna: —events that children are rarely a part of. But I cannot think of any event— I was at the du Maurier festival in Montreal this summer and there's one in my riding, although it's not sponsored by a cigarette company. In Toronto, I've been to the Benson and Hedges event. I've been to a lot of events and I can tell you that children are everywhere. These are family events.

The Chair: Madam Minna, your time's up.

Do you want to give a quick response, Mr. Parker?

Mr. Robert Parker: Beyond pointing out, Mr. Chairman, that it is very difficult to segregate children entirely— There is a French phrase which escapes me: they're not empty suitcases—

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Just for the purposes of giving everybody an opportunity to speak, I am going to give Ms. Wasylycia-Leis two minutes, question and answer included, and Mr. Hill will finish off the rest of that period.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I didn't get a chance to complete my questions on the 1987 testimony. You just answered my last question by saying that you have a voluntary code prohibiting marketing to people under 25. But as I understand—

Mr. Robert Parker: No, I'm sorry. The models that appear in ads may not be less than 25. I happen to have a son—he's 26 now, but he was 22 or 23 at the time—who is an actor, who got a call from his agent to go to an audition for a sponsorship ad. The first question they asked him was how old he was, he said 23, and they said goodbye. That is a rule that is rigidly enforced by the company.

The advertising targets of ads are people who are of legal age to make the decision to smoke and be sold the product, which is either 18—it's kind of illogical—or 19, depending upon the jurisdiction.

• 1210

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: But isn't it true that in 1987 your voluntary code prohibited marketing to people under 16 and that the legal minimum age in two provinces, Ontario and New Brunswick, was actually 18?

Mr. Robert Parker: I don't know that to be the case. My understanding is that the legal age in those provinces and, in fact, everywhere at that time was 16. I could be corrected. I would be happy to look it up and respond through the chair on what the—

The Chair: Could you do that before Tuesday? Thank you, Mr. Parker.

Mr. Hill.

Mr. Grant Hill: Mr. Parker, your assertion is that your ads don't direct themselves to kids. I don't agree with that at all and I'd like to address a specific promotional effort. It's the mountain biking championship. I'm a dad of a number of young men; I have boys who range in age from 14 to older. The mountain biking championship is attractive to those who are well under the legal age to smoke. Your company's efforts in that direction do not only advertise the event but, as one of the gentleman from Quebec said, go on long after the event.

I watch those ads in my own home community and they advertise events here in the east, in Quebec. Those ads can have no economic benefit to the event. They have only an attraction to mountain-biking-age kids. Your statement is absolutely ludicrous and you would do far more credit to your organization if you would stop saying these things.

Some of the other things you say can be debated and discussed, but this statement is beyond belief. I urge you to stop saying these foolish things.

The Chair: Mr. Parker.

Mr. Robert Parker: May I respond?

The Chair: Sure.

Mr. Robert Parker: With respect, sir, I have to disagree that it's either foolish or inaccurate. The majority of adult smokers who are brand-switchers are in the 19 to 30 age group. It is very difficult to find any activity— The easy way to prove that is to talk to smokers, and you'll find out that they did what I did as an older teenager. Having occasionally smoked and finally decided I was a smoker and would start buying them instead of bumming them, I switched brands five or six times over the next ten years. That's the general pattern.

It's very difficult to find any activity or image that is attractive to a 19- to 30-year-old that is not attractive to 15- to 17-year-olds. They think they're adults. They want to be treated that way. You have children who I'm sure have told you that: “Dad, I'm old enough.” They make up an incontestable part of audiences for family events, whether it's the Benson and Hedges thing or car racing. They're not the targets, not the principal audience. You simply don't find any examples of companies advertising—even when there were no restrictions—in vehicles or events that are primarily for 15- and 16-year-olds, like, for example, on the back of Jack and Jill or at soapbox derbies or in comic books.

The Chair: Mr. Parker, thank you very much. I especially appreciate the frankness of the exchanges back and forth. I think members did as well.

Mr. Robert Parker: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: We'll adjourn to the call of the chair until Tuesday.