HEAL Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON HEALTH

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA SANTÉ

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, November 3, 1998

• 0908

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.)): Thank you very much for coming together this morning, colleagues. We are running a few minutes behind time, but we now have our quorum, and we are pleased this morning to receive three different groups to conclude our public hearings on Bill C-42.

We have with us, from the Non-Smokers' Rights Association, David Sweanor, the senior legal counsel; from the Alliance for Sponsorship Freedom, Max Beck, general manager, Ontario Place; and from the Canadian Medical Association, Dr. Cindy Forbes, chair of the Council on Health Care and Promotion, and Dr. Isra Levy, director and health programs project manager. Welcome to all.

Why don't we begin with the last mentioned? Is that good enough?

We have a little process whereby we would like to get dialogue going, as opposed to hearing long, extensive presentations. If you have written briefs, you can certainly give them to us and we'll be pleased to read them. Otherwise, would you try to keep your remarks to within about five minutes—I might give you a little bit of latitude, but not much more than that—so that members can ask you questions.

Dr. Forbes, is it you who will be speaking?

• 0910

Dr. Cindy Forbes (Chair, Council on Health Care and Promotion, Canadian Medical Association): Yes, it is. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On behalf of the Canadian Medical Association, I'm pleased to be able to speak with you today. I'm a family physician from Nova Scotia and chair of the CMA Council on Health Care and Promotion.

The CMA has been speaking strongly against tobacco since 1954, and welcomes the opportunity to do so again today on the topic of Bill C-42. With me today is Dr. Isra Levy, who is the director of CMA's professional affairs directorate.

In brief, the CMA's position on Bill C-42 is that we support the government in its intent to ban all sponsorship advertising by tobacco companies. We are, however, disappointed that the bill proposes a five-year grace period before the total ban takes effect, and we ask that the committee recommend that the bill be amended to bring it into effect immediately.

The statistics on tobacco use are well known. We know tobacco kills up to 45,000 people a year in Canada, more than traffic accidents, murders, suicides, drug abuse, and AIDS combined. We know smoking is a major cause of cancer, heart disease and emphysema. We know it's linked to an increase in stomach ulcers, impotence, gangrene, gum disease, and premature aging, to name only a few.

We know second-hand smoke has been linked to heart disease and cancer in adults, to ear infections, asthma, low birth weight and sudden infant death syndrome in children. We know nicotine is a highly addictive substance. But to me and my physician colleagues across the country, these health facts are more than statistics; they are the men, women and children we see in our offices every day.

Every year an estimated 250,000 young people in Canada start smoking. Many of these teenagers will be unable to give up the habit, however much they want to, and may be doomed to serious illness or premature death.

In 1995 the tobacco industry spent $60 million on sponsorship of concerts and sporting events, many of which appeal directly to young people. Tobacco companies often use these events as an opportunity to display a brand name, a logo, or other characteristic that identifies their products.

Though the tobacco industry denies that such sponsorship targets teenagers or that it has any impact on persuading them to smoke, there is evidence to suggest otherwise. Nearly all respondents to Health Canada's 1994 youth smoking survey, smokers and non-smokers alike, saw sponsorship primarily as a way of advertising particular brands of cigarettes. Half of young respondents felt that sponsorship was a way of encouraging people to smoke.

British researchers have found that adolescent boys who named motor car racing as their favourite television sport were more likely to become regular smokers than those who did not like racing.

For those reasons, the CMA supports the total ban on sponsorship advertising proposed in Bill C-42. We cannot support any delay in implementing this ban. The grace period proposed by Bill C-42 allows tobacco companies another five years in which to continue their aggressive campaigns, targeting our youth, lobbying for further extensions, and otherwise undermining the political will to act on this law. During this period, at least one million Canadian children will start to smoke and 250,000 Canadians will die from tobacco-related diseases. In addition, the five-year grace period of Bill C-42 actually begins when the bill becomes law, which may be months from now. This means that it may be more than five years before the total ban becomes effective.

If the government is serious about reducing tobacco-induced disease and protecting Canadian children from the risks of tobacco, it should enact a total ban on sponsorship advertising by tobacco companies.

The CMA's message is clear: Bill C-42 is not about sports and cultural events; it's about life and death.

There are a variety of reasons why children take up the smoking habit and why millions of Canadians who smoke continue to do so. It will take a variety of initiatives, working in combination, to effectively fight tobacco use, initiatives such as tough regulations on packaging, health warnings, and product content as proposed by the Tobacco Act; high prices and taxes for tobacco products; and enough funding to ensure Canada maintains strong, effective, long-term programs to discourage children from smoking and to help people who are already addicted to quit smoking. Restrictions on promotion, including sponsorship promotion, are a vital part of this package.

• 0915

In our brief, the CMA recommends Bill C-42 be augmented by making tough regulations to support the Tobacco Act; pursuing a comprehensive tobacco taxation strategy designed to reduce consumption and minimize smuggling; and providing enough funding to ensure Canada maintains strong, sustained, and effective programs to discourage children from smoking and to provide support for smoking cessation services.

Mr. Chairman, the CMA urges you and your committee to support this position. Remove the grace period and make Bill C-42 a truly effective weapon in the fight against tobacco.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Forbes.

Mr. Sweanor.

Mr. David Sweanor (Senior Legal Counsel, Non-Smokers' Rights Association): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I want to just reiterate some of what Dr. Forbes has already indicated. We are dealing with a piece of health legislation. You are a health committee. This is not an issue of support of culture or industry; it's not a culture and industry committee. This is a very important issue.

As we've already heard, tobacco is now recognized to be killing about 45,000 Canadians a year, and that figure is going up. It's estimated by the World Health Organization that within the next 20 to 25 years, over one million Canadians currently alive will die as a direct result of tobacco industry products—roughly the population of Nova Scotia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, or indeed the greater Ottawa-Hull area. It's a horrendous health problem.

The magnitude of the health problem is augmented by the magnitude of the economic problems. We are losing billions of dollars a year in our economy due to this industry. It is a massive drain on our resources, human and financial. And we're no longer winning this war. In the 1980s, tobacco consumption was falling rapidly in Canada. It isn't falling any more. Tobacco consumption has gone up in recent years. It has not resumed a downward trend; among our children the trend is decidedly upward. We are definitely losing.

This tragedy is compounded by the fact that we know much of what needs to be done to deal with the problem. We're just not doing it. A significant part of what we need to do is look at issues of informed consent to tell Canadians the truth about the product and prevent other people from misleading them. And there is no doubt tobacco promotion misleads people.

As you look at this legislation, any limits you are looking to put on the ability of the Tobacco Act to protect the health of Canadians, if there are going to be any limits at all, should be minimized. Do what you can to protect health.

We do not support these amendments. While we do support an end to tobacco advertising via sponsorships, the concessions granted to the tobacco industry in Bill C-42 are, in our view, not required to finally bring closure to tobacco sponsorship. Tobacco advertising through sponsorship is a very effective form of tobacco advertising. These associations give credibility and legitimacy to tobacco products. They undermine efforts to tell Canadians the truth about these products. It is very hard for someone to explain to their children the true, deadly nature of tobacco products when they see big promotional displays on billboards and they see the associations with family entertainment, with sports, and with the glamour that comes with these associations.

How can we allow that to exist for a product the World Health Organization tells us will eventually kill half its long-term users?

If this committee plans to support the proposed bill, we propose amendments be enacted to reduce the harm that would otherwise occur to the public. We support the amendments that have already been brought before this committee by the Canadian Cancer Society, and I'd like to expand a bit on what else could be done.

The goal of this act is to protect the health of Canadians, but the apparent goal of Bill C-42, in giving a longer phase-out period for tobacco company sponsorships, is in conflict with the goal of the Tobacco Act.

• 0920

The purpose of this bill is not, I hope, to deceive Canadians about the magnitude of the risks of smoking. These continued sponsorships must not be allowed to convey, in any way, inaccurate and incomplete information about tobacco products, because this would undermine the intention of the Tobacco Act itself.

As a minimum, the Standing Committee on Health must, in our opinion, ensure any sponsorship advertising that uses tobacco names or other tobacco brand elements also contains a detailed health warning. Tell Canadians the truth.

In our view, section 24 of the Tobacco Act includes the ability to require health messages on sponsorship advertising. To date, it hasn't been done. We request that as an absolute minimum this committee send a strong message that it wants these messages to appear. There were health messages on tobacco advertising. Sponsorship advertising is tobacco advertising. Make sure this message is there.

At the very least, if our children are seeing this promotion of tobacco products, let them also see a message that may raise in their minds the questions about this product.

Further, we think the committee should add a new section to this bill to ensure any tobacco sponsorship promotional material must contain a health warning. It's too important to leave it to the long process of the department moving through the regulatory process.

I can leave copies of our suggestion for a new clause 6 with the committee. We suggest clause 6(1): Any sign or printed material that uses a tobacco name or brand element after January 1, 1999, must include a message as prescribed by regulation covering at least 20% of the surface area.

We also suggest a subclause 6(2): If the regulations prescribed pursuant to subclause (1) are not enforced by January 1, 1999—this is because these things do take time, and we do not want to leave a window of opportunity for inaccurate portrayals of this stuff—then until such time as they are enforced, there must be a black-lettered warning covering 20% at the top of any sponsorship signs and materials saying “Tobacco use causes cancer and heart disease.” We feel this would be a minimum to try to end deception.

The amendment you're looking at, the extension to these sponsored activities, is apparently to give a benefit to some of the sponsored activities themselves. It is not to deceive Canadians. It's not to trick our children. We'll make sure there is an accurate message about the nature of these products.

The government should also prevent this extension from becoming a loophole attracting far more sponsorship-based tobacco advertising. Again, we recommend, as a minimum, you place a ceiling on the funds that may be spent on tobacco promotion via sponsorships.

The absence of a ceiling will result, quite possibly, in massively increased expenditures for sponsorships over the next two years. It's a loophole that any tobacco company can walk through and we assume they will. To the extent this is done, it's going to create new tobacco dependencies. It's going to create new physiological dependencies among our children and it will create new financial dependencies among the sponsored groups.

This will undermine the intention of the Tobacco Act. It will add to the health toll. It will make it more difficult for the government to implement its total ban on such advertising in a few years.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Sweanor.

Mr. Beck.

Mr. Max Beck (General Manager, Ontario Place; Alliance for Sponsorship Freedom): You're going to hear a slightly different view on this. You've heard from the last two speakers about 20 or so different strategies the government might be able to use to have an impact on smoking and young people taking up smoking. Instead, the government has concentrated almost entirely on one item, and this is the sponsorship question. I want to tell you about what some of the impacts and fallout of this will be.

On behalf of the 250 members of the Alliance for Sponsorship Freedom, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to appear here today and present our own views.

Bill C-42 is a critical piece of legislation for hundreds of events throughout Canada that currently receive tobacco company sponsorships.

As you know, the restrictions in Bill C-71 on sponsorship promotions were scheduled to come into force on October 1 of this year. However, the Government of Canada, through Bill C-42, has recognized it would have been impossible for events to replace this $60 million in direct sponsorship funding from the tobacco companies within the 18-month transition period originally proposed.

• 0925

Even though a total ban was not included in Bill C-71, the restrictions amounted to an effective ban on title sponsorships. The government appears to have recognized this by agreeing to extend the transition period. So instead of having a ban on October 1, we're now facing an effective ban two years from now, not really in five years. It's very unlikely that every event will be able to replace their tobacco company sponsorship even within this extended time period.

Since Bill C-71 was passed, only one major event in Canada has been successful in finding a new title sponsor, and that's the Grand Prix in Montreal. It's perhaps the highest-profile event in Canada. There are at least 20 other very major events and hundreds of smaller arts, sports, fashion and cultural events across the country that are still trying to secure alternate sponsors.

Acquiring sponsors for an event is a process that usually takes years. Most of us are also trying to find sponsors to replace losses in government funding, particularly federal government funding. It took the Royal Canadian Golf Association, for example, seven years to replace Imperial Tobacco, a sponsor of the Canadian Open. It took the combined resources of 14 corporations to match Imperial's single sponsorship.

There are 350 organizations in events out there that are scrambling to replace their sponsorships that are worth roughly $60 million. While it took one very prestigious international organization seven years, the government is somehow thinking that 350 groups are going to do the same within about three and a half years. Put simply, it's impossible.

Still at risk, then, are thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in economic and tourism impacts. Also, let's consider the events we're talking about. We're talking about jazz festivals, fireworks displays, symphony performances, comedy festivals, motor sports events, theatre festivals, dance performances, golf tournaments, tennis tournaments, fashion shows, and show jumping events. I would guess that everybody in this room has been to one of those events at one time or another.

My own event, the Benson & Hedges Symphony of Fire at Ontario Place, is enjoyed by two million people each summer. It creates about 800 jobs and contributes about $60 million overall to the Toronto economy. The impact estimate is that there are roughly $10 million in taxes that go back to all levels of government. Benson & Hedges puts $5 million each year to that event, and we have a 10-year contract with them for that event.

In comparison, at Ontario Place, my next largest sponsor is another major corporation. It contributes $300,000. So you can understand what a jump it's going to take to replace $5 million in sponsorships.

Some of the biggest corporations in this country usually only give $100,000, $200,000, or $300,000. The money is basically just not out there. Finding $5 million for this fantastic fireworks display will not be easy, certainly not in this current economic climate.

I hope we can agree on one thing: that the hundreds of events across Canada that will help define our communities are too important to jeopardize and to lose.

While the alliance is pleased that the government has decided to give us two more years, we do not believe that this will be sufficient time when we're entering a worldwide economic downturn where almost every major corporation is in the process of reducing their marketing budgets. General Motors, for example, one of our major sponsors, has had a bad year and has stopped most of their sponsorships. Partly because of their discussions about mergers, most of the banks are cutting back dramatically on their sponsorships.

Hence, the alliance recommends that the government's new five-year transition period should be just that—five complete years with no off-site restrictions before the total ban comes into force. This would give our valuable events a reasonable time period to find replacement sponsors. It would be consistent with the approach agreed upon by members of the European Union, where sponsorship bans will apply in the years 2003 and 2006. Basically, we're saying don't put all those off-site restrictions on in years three to five.

If Canada's transition period is not harmonized with that of the European Community, then even the international motor sports events that are held in Canada run the risk of being dropped from the circuit entirely. Clearly, this would be in no one's best interest.

Another possible amendment we know you're considering is for sponsorship funding to be capped during the transition period. We again would ask you not to consider that cap because of expenses. We're in the business of trying to make these events grow bigger. We want to make a bigger contribution to the Canadian economy and to entertain more people through our events, and we would like to continue to see those events grow.

• 0930

Some of the problems with caps would be things like prize money, and so forth. Du Maurier tennis would be a great example. To get big players in every year, they usually have to increase the amount of prizes they are giving, and a cap would certainly restrict that dramatically.

Finally, I would like to make a couple of general comments. The alliance was formed in 1996 to protect sponsorship rights, including the right to seek, accept, or reject sponsorship funding from Canada's tobacco companies. We feel that we basically lost the battle to protect these sponsorships over the long run, but we are also concerned about what government action may be in the future in other areas, such as alcohol, beer companies, automobile manufacturers, and so forth. We are worried that you may extend the same approach to other companies that are legally entitled to operate in the country.

On behalf of the alliance, I thank you for your consideration of our recommendations, and I would be glad to answer any questions.

The Chair: Thank you.

I will go immediately to questions, and may I remind colleagues that we have five minutes. Mr. Hill.

Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First off, to the CMA and to the Non-Smokers' Rights Association, do you know of any health group in Canada that supports the amendments suggested in Bill C-42?

The Chair: Dr. Isra Levy.

Dr. Isra Levy (Director and Health Programs Project Manager, Canadian Medical Association): I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand the question. The amendments from the government...?

Mr. Grant Hill: It's Bill C-42, which is an act to amend the Tobacco Act, which amends the Dingwall bill, I'll call it. Do you know of any health group in Canada that supports this approach?

Dr. Isra Levy: No.

Dr. Cindy Forbes: No.

Mr. David Sweanor: No.

Mr. Grant Hill: Okay, thank you. And I take those as emphatic noes. I know of no health group in Canada that supports this approach either.

To Mr. Beck, I'd like to know, does your association support the tobacco companies' court challenge of the Dingwall bill and these amendments to the Dingwall bill? They are challenging these in court. Do you support that court challenge?

Mr. Max Beck: I don't think we've ever given it enough discussion to know that there is an opinion among our membership. What we basically are concerned about is trying to retain and protect the events we run. We're trying to find a way to protect those events. We haven't got very involved in watching what the tobacco industry does in terms of that kind of legal case. To my knowledge, we've never discussed it.

Mr. Grant Hill: You will admit, though, that the bulk of funding for your alliance comes from the tobacco companies?

Mr. Max Beck: No, I don't think that would be so. The bulk of the funding for all the organizations would come from a myriad of sources—

Mr. Grant Hill: I'm talking about funding for the alliance.

Mr. Max Beck: For the alliance per se, I would say we get some funding from them.

Mr. Grant Hill: What percentage would you say?

Mr. Max Beck: But the bulk of the effort is simply the time and effort that staff and organizations that feel threatened by this are putting into trying to salvage this situation.

Mr. Grant Hill: What percentage of your funding would you say comes directly from the tobacco companies?

Mr. Max Beck: Maybe about 20%.

Mr. Grant Hill: You mentioned motor sport in Europe, saying that if the ban we're proposing here took place, Canada might well lose its big motor sport event.

Could you comment on why Germany has already completely banned all tobacco logos from the cars? If you watch motor sport you will know that the wing on the Ferrari doesn't have Marlboro on it; it's blocked right out. All the signs around the track are removed. Could you tell me how Germany could do that, and did it already—it's a done deal—and yet Canada might lose its Grand Prix if this happened here?

Mr. Max Beck: I can't tell you. I'm sure you are much closer to motor sports than I am.

I know there's a range of differences in how different countries are treating motor sports right now, and I think if we get too terribly out of sync with what's happening in the rest of the world we do run a chance of losing these events. It's a volatile situation. The rules are changing in almost every country. The rules are getting tougher in almost every country. We understand that. However, there are challenges, and there is back and forth happening in a lot of countries too. The situation, as I look at it, is fairly unstable, but I'm not an expert in motor sport, and I'm sure you know far more about it than I do.

Mr. Grant Hill: Well, let me just tell you that the FIA, the governing body for motor sport, has agreed that by the year 2002, proof being shown, they themselves will ban all tobacco advertising.

• 0935

Mr. Max Beck: That's what we've asked for, basically—to leave things until about 2002 here.

I think we all see the direction things are heading, but I believe there is a need to phase that out over a longer period of time, not just for motor sports but for the groups across this country that have, for various reasons, been receiving generous sponsorships from tobacco companies. I don't believe we will all just suddenly find $60 million in 12 or 24 months, etc.

It's a very major task you've handed us, at the same time as your own government is cutting funding about as rapidly as you're proposing the tobacco companies.... You have to decide whether you want a sport, art, and entertainment industry in this country or not. If you do, you should work to preserve them.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Beck and Mr. Hill.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis.

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

I would like to begin by asking Dr. Forbes, Dr. Levy, and Mr. Sweanor about some of the amendments we will be discussing later on in this committee. The government announced several amendments, and we appreciate those proposals that will be brought before us later today. However, there are two amendments we will be discussing on which the parliamentary secretary has indicated she would like to receive insight and observations from the witnesses before this committee. They have to do with the ban on point-of-sale advertising, the question of restricting sponsorship promotion in and outside of retail outlets, and the question all of you have referenced, the ceiling on sponsorship spending, or at least a ceiling on the promotion of the sponsored event.

What is your feeling about the feasibility and enforceability of those two amendments? I'm very curious and interested to hear your answer, since the parliamentary secretary has expressed an openness to hearing witnesses on these issues and may, depending on the testimony, consider supporting those amendments.

Dr. Cindy Forbes: With regard to those amendments and others that move toward a total ban, we are supportive of amendments that will move us toward our goal, which is the total restriction on tobacco advertising. However, our position is that there should not be a delay in reaching a total restriction. We would support any measures that are going to restrict tobacco advertising to our young people.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Do you see any problem with enforceability or feasibility of amendments in those two areas?

Dr. Isra Levy: We have not had an opportunity to explore the issues of feasibility and enforceability, unfortunately. I believe we would, after consideration of the questions, end up concluding something along the lines that ends could be made in order to achieve the goals. So I think Dr. Forbes has pretty much summarized it. Our position is we want to see an end to the promotions and advertising soon, and feasibility and enforceability must be possible.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Sweanor, do you support amendments in those two areas, and do you see any problems with enforceability and feasibility?

Mr. David Sweanor: Certainly if Bill C-42, in anything close to its current form, were going to be supported by this committee, those two amendments, among hopefully others, would be important.

On the ban on point-of-sale advertising, we are talking about giving an extension to some sponsored activities. Regardless of how one might feel about why a government would want to do that when we're dealing with an issue like tobacco, the fact is you're not trying to give the ability to advertise tobacco products; you're saying tobacco advertising is gone under the Tobacco Act.

When you walk into a tobacco retailer and you see the signs that say Export A, Rothmans, Players, du Maurier, in the colours of Export A, Rothmans, Players, and du Maurier, and they're right beside the displays of cigarettes, with the names of Export A, Rothmans, Players, and du Maurier, it's no wonder, as the evidence Dr. Forbes has already cited has shown, children see those as tobacco advertisements—so will every adult. They are tobacco advertisements, especially when they're right next to the tobacco products.

• 0940

Ending that connection or at least limiting it at the direct points of sale is important. Otherwise, we have a continuing joke where years ago the Government of Canada banned tobacco advertising and those big ads and the clocks in the stores that used to say Players and Export A and Rothmans came down, and the next week they went back up saying Players Inc., Rothmans Inc., Export A Inc., and du Maurier Ltd., and we all knew it was just a continuation of tobacco advertising.

We all know we have a big problem. Youth tobacco consumption is about half again as high as it was when there was a change in government in 1993. It's a significant problem.

You've limited the ability of the tobacco industry to advertise its products to a very narrow category, but it will be the same as when advertising on television and radio was ended and the advertising budget went into billboards and magazines. If you don't put a ceiling on expenditures, the advertising budget will be channelled. Pressure will be put on any area where there's a single outlet and the pressure will come out that outlet. There will be a big increase in these sponsored activities. Every company will have an incentive, individually, to do this to get an advantage on the competitors, and the industry as a whole will have an advantage in doing this.

Can these things be done practically?

The Chair: Could you finish off perhaps in response to someone else, Mr. Sweanor?

Mr. Myers.

Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I have two questions. The first is for Mr. Sweanor.

I was interested when you spoke about the health warning in your subclause 6(1). Would that be some sort of standard warning, or would it be specific to these circumstances? What exactly did you have in mind there?

Mr. David Sweanor: I think the important concept is that because these are seen as tobacco advertising and because we have had a social consensus in this country for quite a number of years that tobacco advertising should have a health warning, these signs should have a health warning. I'm concerned that with the two-year extension we will have another two years of people seeing these signs for the promotion of tobacco products, without getting a counter message—the health message. I don't think that's the intention of this committee or the government.

If we simply leave this to the regulatory authority the government has, it could well take more than two years before we have regulations in force that would require a health message on these signs.

I think it is important for this committee to put pressure on the government to ensure that any signs that have a tobacco name or brand identification have a health warning. The alternative is to have a standard health warning written right into the law to begin with that would be in force until the regulations brought something better forward.

We can't write all the regulations with this, but we can set a minimum standard. As a minimum standard we can put in an amendment that says the top 20% of any of those promotional materials, to the extent they're tobacco advertising and have tobacco names on them, will have to have a simple message. It will be something kids can read, something adults can see—tobacco causes cancer and heart disease. We can urge the government to move with something better than that, but as a minimum, as of the beginning of next year, any signs that go up will have to have that message on them.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Thank you very much.

My second question is to Mr. Beck. Instead of the extra time provided in Bill C-42, I wonder if the alliance would have maybe preferred government funding or assistance in some way.

Mr. Max Beck: We've talked to you before about the question of government funding. Our concern there and our experience has been that any time the government has had a dedicated fund in anything, over the years you've usually reduced it and chopped into it until it ended up being less. So we're very reluctant to trust that you would keep the money, put the money or expand the money in there.

• 0945

Also, our experience with you is that almost all the sources of government funding to support the events we're talking about are on the decline, not on the increase. So we would just as soon try to take our chances with the private sector, frankly, than to rely on the government for that. But if it were there, obviously we wouldn't refuse it and we would work with it.

Mr. Lynn Myers: You wouldn't say no, I guess is the point.

Mr. Max Beck: No, we wouldn't say no at the end of the day.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Thanks very much.

The Chair: Before I go on to Ms. Minna, I just wondered, Mr. Sweanor, since you brought up the issue, do you have some statistics for us that would show the impact of the warnings on cigarettes? I'm not a smoker, but when I go to buy my gas I see these packages and they've got “cigarettes cause cancer”, etc., on them. What has been the impact of those types of messages?

Mr. David Sweanor: Research has been done on that topic by the health department, and again I'm going from memory on this; I'm sure they can give you the exact numbers. In terms of the recall of the messages, we've seen an increase in the awareness of these diseases. And of those people who have quit after those warnings were printed, a significant percentage attributed to a significant degree their decision to quit on those warnings.

The Chair: Is significant 5%, 10%?

Mr. David Sweanor: No, I believe it was—and again the departmental officials can correct me—in excess of 30% of all people who quit who said those warnings played a significant role in their decision to quit. But I think the warnings must be seen in terms of overall educational efforts. We've done a bad job in that people generally know smoking is bad, but they have a very poor appreciation of the risk.

In polls done a few years ago in Ontario asking smokers how many cases of lung cancer will result in death, only 13% responded in the right area. When asked how quickly their risk of a heart attack falls when they quit smoking, only 15% got it right. They didn't know. Many people, and certainly children, do not know the magnitude of the risk.

The warnings that are on packages now are only a—

The Chair: They've been there for quite some time.

Mr. David Sweanor: That's right. They need to change. Any message—

The Chair: So then they'd take up most of the package, as I see it. Again I'm not a consumer, so I'm coming at it rather objectively. So I pick up this package and I see this huge sign on it, and I'm misanthropic most of the time; I'm scared half to death. But from the presentations I've had before this committee in the last few days and in the past, I get a different sense. And that is that maybe these things aren't as effective as they are designed to be, that the consumer doesn't pay much attention to it.

I think you're reinforcing that, at least in my impression. I'm not laying blame. I'm just wondering whether there is a causal relationship.

Mr. David Sweanor: I think there's definitely a causal relationship. But we also have to recognize what the government has done to date is simply identified some of the diseases. It is not telling people their likelihood of getting the diseases; it's not telling them their prognosis should they get the disease; it's not telling them the benefits of quitting; and it's not telling them what they can do if they want to quit.

Based on surveys from the States—I'm not aware of the Government of Canada doing similar things—over two-thirds of smokers say they want to quit. But we're doing very little to facilitate that process. If we were in South Africa, there would be a toll-free number right on the package of cigarettes that you could call if you wanted advice. The reality is of all those who try quitting on their own, which is in the range of 40% of all Canadian smokers per year, somewhere in the range of 3% to 5% of them will succeed. It's a very difficult thing to do.

We could use packaging as a way of giving them information because we know of things that will double or triple the chance of success in any given quit attempt. We can use that to give information to Canadians that'll let them do what they want. The lifestyle choice of smokers, for the vast majority of smokers, isn't to be smokers, regardless of the stuff the tobacco industry will say. They want not to be smoking. They want not to be exposing their kids. They need information.

When they don't know quitting smoking will definitely reduce their risk of heart attacks and do it quickly, they're less likely to quit. When they don't know what things help them quit, they're less likely to try, or if they do try they're less likely to be—

The Chair: What's your impression then of all those ads that were on for quite some time, I recall, during the Marleau period? During her ministry there was an aggressive campaign to dissuade young people from smoking. When I looked at those ads, I thought they were really dramatic. Obviously I'm a little older than the intended audience. I thought they were really impressive. Apparently the intended public or the intended consumer thought they were a joke.

• 0950

Mr. David Sweanor: I don't believe the consumers did. Again, when we look at the results—

The Chair: No, I don't think I read or heard or saw any interviews or any results that indicated otherwise. I guess I'd have to disagree.

I kind of scratched my head and said this minister is doing everything that the health-conscious public would demand; yet it appears that all of the intended consumers of that educational advertising are kind of thumbing their collective nose at the effort.

Mr. David Sweanor: If I may just have two quick responses to that....

The Chair: The clerk is advising me that my time is up.

Mr. David Sweanor: First of all, the advertising about the health effects of smoking occurred at the same time as the price of cigarettes was cut in half. Your success is going to be the same as if you ran a big seatbelt campaign while cars without seatbelts were allowed to be sold at half price. You're going to be very limited.

When we look at places that have had campaigns and have had sustained campaigns, a two-month wonder isn't going to change things. California, Massachusetts, Victoria, Australia—there are various jurisdictions that have done this on a sustained basis. The prevalence of smoking in California is under 20%; it's fallen dramatically. The prevalence of smoking in Massachusetts has fallen dramatically.

I'm on the evaluation committee for the State of California, and looking at their tobacco control program, there are some very impressive results. They made an investment. They challenged the tobacco industry. They started to tell consumers the truth, and they responded—not everybody, but enough did to make a really significant impact. In terms of cost-effectiveness, it's there.

When you're dealing with something that's killing 45,000 Canadians a year, that's addicting over 100,000 of our kids every year, if you do something that impacts on that by even 3% or 4% or 5%, the impact you're having is dramatic.

The Chair: Thanks. You could be the chair of this committee. You go on just as long as he does.

Miss Minna.

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

I just wanted to go back to the issue of the ceiling. I wanted to start first with Mr. Sweanor or Ms. Forbes.

When I think about it, one of things I try to sort out is how would we enforce it. I don't know that we know the accounting systems of all of the organizations; I imagine they all have their own different accounting systems. They're private organizations, not public organizations, so we don't have access and we don't know. One of the concerns I would have is how we would begin to enforce or to monitor, without having an accountant from the government go into every sponsored event and somehow do first an analysis of what is now, and then ensure what kind of percentage would be allowed. That would be quite a whole other thing. I'm not sure. So that's one issue, one problem I would have.

Have you thought about this? I've heard this before on the ceiling, but I'm not quite sure how one would accomplish that.

Dr. Cindy Forbes: As Dr. Levy has mentioned, we haven't examined the feasibility of either of those proposed amendments or suggestions. But just to reiterate the point I made earlier, the line on the advertisement, the ceiling on the total amount to spend doesn't go far enough. We're still seeing 250,000 young Canadians start smoking, and part of that is the influence of advertising.

If we can limit the amount of advertising you could reduce that number somewhat, but that isn't good enough. I have two children, aged 11 and 12. Statistically, if they're going to smoke, they'll start within the next five years. And there are probably other people in this room who have children of that age. That's the point we're making. Waiting five years to reduce the spending and to ban all advertising on tobacco is too long. There's a generation of children who will start smoking. This measure will not stop all of them from smoking. There have to be other things. But I don't think we should get too lost in looking at how we can modify it slightly when really the answer is a total ban, and making it effective as soon as possible.

Mr. David Sweanor: To respond, I don't think you'd need to audit the organizations that receive the money. There could be hundreds of such organizations. There are only three companies that are supplying the money. Those companies could be required to provide information, as they already are under the act, as the expenditures they're making, both direct and indirect expenditures for sponsored activities in association with a tobacco product or tobacco brand element.

• 0955

To peg that, it's saying that their expenditures in total may not exceed the total expenditures made in 1997 or 1996. There will, I think, probably still be some cheating around the edges, but you're dealing with cheating of them arguing on whether an additional 5% or 10% might be able to sneak in there, not the situation that would exist in the absence of any controls, which could be an 800% increase. And two years from now you have several clones of Max Beck back here saying “You have to give us more time; now we're even more dependent, we're receiving even more money for even more organizations.” It's that 800% increase you really have to deal with. We know with many of our laws there can be some play around the edges.

Ms. Maria Minna: Mr. Beck, I wonder if you could—

The Chair: We have to go to the next one. But there won't be clones of Mr. Beck here if Bill C-47 ever gets through the House.

Mr. Thompson.

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

My question is for Mr. Beck, and it relates to his position paper. On page two you talked about “Nor has the Government ever provided any evidence to prove that there's a direct linkage between sponsored events and the smoking decision.” Do you actually believe that statement?

Mr. Max Beck: Yes. We asked the ministry officials and others, at the very beginning of this process, if it would be provided—

Mr. Greg Thompson: Okay, you accept that as being the truth. I don't want to be rude and interject, but I only have so much time. If that is the truth, why the resistance to vacate that area of advertising? Why not just provide these groups with the funding necessary? Otherwise, if you're not impacting on smoking, just simply sponsor the group without that insistence on advertising.

In other words, if you do believe in what you're saying, if the advertisers believe that as well, and there's no evidence out there, simply vacate that area, because it's not going to have an impact on your market share. In other words, there are not going to be more smokers coming on line or keeping up the habit, if you wish, if there's no linkage.

Mr. Max Beck: So you're saying why shouldn't they just give money and not ask to have their name on the ad on the promotion? Is that what you're saying?

Mr. Greg Thompson: I'm saying there is definitely linkage between the sponsorship events advertising and the decision to smoke, most obviously among young Canadians.

Mr. Max Beck: If you could provide me with the evidence, I'd love to take a look at it and see it.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Well, I hate to be rude, but I think your head's buried in the sand.

Mr. Max Beck: No, I don't think so. There's certainly—

Mr. Greg Thompson: I think you've smoked too many cigarettes.

Mr. Max Beck: Actually I don't smoke. I have never been a smoker. And I'm very pleased my children don't.

Mr. Greg Thompson: And you didn't inhale either, did you? You didn't inhale.

The Chair: Just a second, Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Let's go down through on page four.

The Chair: We can ask all the questions and be as frank as possible, and I like the freshness of the exchange, but let's leave personal observations aside.

Mr. Greg Thompson: We'll try to remain civil, as the chairman is saying.

On page four you're talking about some of the groups that I guess will benefit from sponsorship for some of the events. You're talking about fireworks, about tennis. I guess in your mind fireworks would be more important than 40,000 deaths or reducing the number of new smokers. Is that idea correct?

Mr. Max Beck: No. If I thought we were solely responsible.... I think again you're oversimplifying, but if I thought we were responsible for 40,000 deaths—

Mr. Greg Thompson: Well, excuse me now, Mr. Beck, just to interject here a little bit, but you're defying all intelligence of the western world in terms of—

The Chair: Greg, we're all interested in getting an answer, but it doesn't help the committee—

Mr. Greg Thompson: I know, but this is rambling on, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Just a second, Greg. It doesn't help the committee at all if we can't hear an answer. Let us have the answer.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Well, Mr. Chairman, the answer is I don't believe—

The Chair: You can always get additional time.

Mr. Greg Thompson: I'm trying to position these people on exactly where they're coming from. And once they state their particular belief, the rest of it is just nonsense. I mean, who wants to listen to a five-minute answer.

The Chair: Well, the rest of us might. You might have a little consideration for committee members.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Chairman, your head is buried in the sand.

The Chair: All right, Mr. Beck, go ahead and attempt to make the answer. You've got 30 seconds.

Mr. Max Beck: Well, I'll refrain. Let him ask another question.

The Chair: Go ahead. You've got 25 seconds.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Beck, on page five of your report you're talking about the economic downturn. In fact I think you were freelancing in this regard, because I don't see the names mentioned, but you did specifically mention the banks and the mergers and laying off individuals, human bodies if you wish, within the banks, and you talked about the downturn in General Motors. In other words, I guess you're saying there's a void there in the marketplace and someone's got to pick it up. Is that basically what you're saying?

• 1000

Mr. Max Beck: No. If you had listened carefully—

Mr. Greg Thompson: I did listen carefully, sir.

Mr. Max Beck: Then you didn't understand it. I said it was far harder to get sponsorships today than ever, and I gave the specific example of General Motors, who have been a long-time sponsor of my organization, who have had a very difficult year—

Mr. Greg Thompson: Exactly. I've made that point.

Mr. Max Beck: —and have just told me that they are going to stop providing a sponsorship of $250,000. If we've got companies as big as General Motors not going to give $250,000, where I am going to get $500,000?

Mr. Greg Thompson: You mentioned the banks as well.

Mr. Max Beck: Yes, I've approached every major bank.

Mr. Greg Thompson: In other words, if it wasn't for this knight in shining armour, that is, the cigarette sponsors, the rest of these events would go to hell in a handbasket. In other words, there's no sponsorship because of the difficulty in the marketplace. That's the point you're making.

Mr. Max Beck: Yes. And frankly, I would say you set up a situation years ago.... The federal government set up a situation with its legislation that a lot of us were able to go and virtually take advantage of that legislation and create a bit of an outlet where some of the tobacco companies at least got their name. We're not denying that. We never have told you that they don't get their name out there. Frankly, if you give them 10%, they're going to get more than they currently get on our posters. They don't get their name in very big colours. They don't always get it in big letters. They don't always get it in the colours they want, as Mr. Sweanor mentioned. But they do get their name out there.

We have taken them, in effect, for millions of dollars to do that. They were over the barrel, in a way, because of your legislation. We did that, and we've got a lot of money from them.

I think we're willing to continue to work with rules of government. If the rules of government change, we'll work with those. We have told you, however, that we don't think you can just suddenly turn the tap off one day and tell us to find $60 million in 24 months. It's not going to happen.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Elley.

Mr. Greg Thompson: On page four of your—

The Chair: When you become Mr. Elley, you can ask the question.

Go ahead, Reed.

Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Thank you very much. I'll try to be a little nicer than Mr. Thompson and perhaps ask the same question.

Mr. Beck, I understand your dilemma. I have sympathy for you from that standpoint. However, to go back to Mr. Thompson's point, your submission deals with dollars and cents, hard economic realities, which all of us in this country are facing. We're all doing some belt tightening. May I suggest, with respect, that perhaps the sports industry and the arts industry in this country are also going to have to do some belt tightening and this is all part of it.

I don't see your submission dealing at all with the morality of this question, this whole area. I don't think you should divorce questions of morality from questions of economics in the long run. When you make a statement that you believe, as an association, that tobacco advertising in your sponsorships has no linkage to any kind of increase in smoking, I don't think any of us will buy that, quite frankly.

I don't see that the tobacco companies are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. They're not doing this because they're good corporate citizens. They're doing this for the economic realities of the situation. Sir, I respectfully say you're on the wrong wavelength if you believe otherwise.

Mr. Max Beck: In fact it's not an easy question. In fact if you believe it's that clear, you should be able to get your officials to give you and to give us some evidence and some very clear evidence that says there is a direct link. And be careful of what I'm saying.

I don't think that because a young person or a person of any age comes down to go to a fireworks show at our place, they immediately go out and start to smoke. If that were true, and if I could prove that existed for any kind of sponsorship situation, I wouldn't have a problem in the world going down and getting money from VIA Rail if I thought every time somebody came down to my place they'd go and buy a VIA Rail ticket or they'd buy an airline ticket because I had an airline company sponsor them. It would be easy to get sponsorship if the link was that direct. It's not that direct, frankly.

Mr. Reed Elley: Well, out of respect, Mr. Beck, if the tobacco companies thought the way you're thinking, they would not advertise with your events. Quite frankly, they would not.

Mr. Max Beck: I resent you saying they advertise with us, but they do get to put their name. Their name is there somewhere on our poster. That's not advertising.

Mr. Reed Elley: That's semantics.

Mr. Max Beck: It's advertising the event. They get their name out and they get some awareness of their name.

• 1005

Do I deny that there's any benefit? There's probably some benefit. Certainly I suspect they're there for market share at least. But whether it encourages new people to smoke is a real question. If you believe it, you should be able to prove it somehow. I don't believe it's there.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Chairman, can I just ask—

The Chair: No, you don't. I'm sorry. I have Judy Wasylycia-Leis.

Mr. Thompson, it's fair to try to get in as many questions as possible, and I'll make the accommodation, but I think out of courtesy to all other members who also want to ask questions, just wait your turn.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Excuse me for freelancing, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Those of us who are here all the time—

Mr. Greg Thompson: I understand, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: —follow a certain procedure.

Mr. Greg Thompson: And you've been here too much, I think.

The Chair: So it would appear. And you haven't been here enough.

Go ahead, Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis.

Mr. Greg Thompson: That's an open invitation to attend more often.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

I would like to follow up this line of questioning of both my colleagues from the Conservative and the Reform parties.

Mr. Beck, do you agree then that if there was evidence that tobacco sponsorship promotion increased smoking then such promotion should be banned?

Mr. Max Beck: I'm surprised that the government doesn't just say you can't have cigarettes. I'm not sure why you say it's a legal product and yet they can't do a business relationship to mention their product. There's a certain hypocrisy there, and I'm not sure why you don't address it.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: But do you agree that if we could find the evidence in clear and uncertain terms that there was a direct link between sponsorship advertising and people getting hooked on cigarettes, you would support a ban of the sponsorship advertising?

Mr. Max Beck: Sure.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: So you in effect would agree with what many of us have been saying, the old dictum that if the freedom of one impinges on the freedom of someone else in society, then in fact it's no longer a freedom and that's where government should be active.

Mr. Max Beck: We've gone further than that. We've also said we recognize that at the end of the day you have the right to do whatever you want on this. As I said, we've always tried to live within the government rules.

The Chair: I know that people want to conduct conversations, but from this end of the table it's difficult to hear the exchange and to follow the dialogue that is supposed to help us make some decisions. I'm going to ask colleagues that if they need to have a conversation, please go outside.

I'm sorry, Mr. Beck and Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

Mr. Max Beck: We've gone further than that, and we have accepted the fact that you ultimately have the right to do this kind of legislation. What we have asked you to do is not just say bingo, it stops tomorrow, and expect....

We believe that we are responsible organizations. We do some of the best events in this country. If you look at the list of the events we do, we do some amazing work. If you look at your own government—and I'm referring to all of you collectively—web sites and so forth as to what are the reasons to come to Canada as a tourist, as a visitor, if you look at your government advertising, you'll see our events are all right up there at the top. And if you believe in our events, then you shouldn't just say bingo, we're cutting out a major source of your funding overnight.

That's the main argument. We have not been arguing with you about the long-run intent of where you're going. We see what's happening all around the world. We understand that and so forth. We think sometimes you oversimplify it, as Mr. Thompson does. But you clearly have that right. You have the right to create legislation, and we will work with that legislation. But we do ask you not to make it so cataclysmic and put all the pressure on us in a very short period of time.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: But precisely using your own argument, this is why some of us are recommending, and why many on the committee are recommending, that at least, given this bill before us, we put a limit on expenditures for these sponsorship advertised events. Yet you're saying you reject the limits on such expenditures, which increases dependency, which makes that transition period even harder. I think that's a responsible position. Yet you're rejecting any attempt to help groups make the transition and help us find other solutions so that they get the funds they need to ensure those events carry on in Canada.

Mr. Max Beck: Again, I think you're putting a lot of emphasis on a minor thing.

The Chair: Mr. Beck, you have 30 seconds.

Mr. Max Beck: You've done a much more effective job by saying no new groups can join the sponsorship pool. That is probably effective. I don't think it makes a major amount of difference. I have told you the impacts of it. It will probably mean that some events like tennis events and so forth will be less successful in attracting stars and attracting people. If that's the kind of thing you want for the country, fine, you can do it. I don't think it will be terribly effective, and I don't think you'll save much in the meantime.

• 1010

The Chair: Madam Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): I have one last very short question, and it's to everyone.

This bill before us, Bill C-42, is an amendment of the existing Tobacco Act. The existing Tobacco Act does not contain a ban. I want to be clear from the health groups that you believe this legislation is good, in that it imposes a ban, and that your only argument is on the timing, but you believe this is an improvement over the existing legislation.

Can I just hear yes or no?

Dr. Cindy Forbes: Yes, our issue is the timing. We believe Bill C-71 should be implemented immediately. There should not be a delay.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: But you support the ban?

Dr. Cindy Forbes: We support the ban.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: And you feel this is an improvement over the existing legislation?

Dr. Cindy Forbes: Yes.

Mr. David Sweanor: This is not an improvement because of the delay given. The Second World War ended in 1945, not 1947; I wouldn't have endorsed an extension to 1947.

Mr. Max Beck: We would just as soon you didn't have the ban in the long run but that you continue to do some things to regulate the kind of sponsor. We've lived in a regulated environment for years now, and we can continue to do that. We'd just as soon you not totally ban it. However, the restrictions are severe enough at the end of two years that you've effectively banned it at the end of two years, not five years.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Madam Caplan.

[Translation]

Mr. Paradis, you have what is left of the last five minutes.

Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): It will be very short, Mr. Chairman. My question is addressed to Mr. Beck.

Mr. Beck, I have certain problems when I read page 3 of the French text of your presentation. You indicate that the government has never provided any proof whatsoever that there could be a link between the sponsored events and the decision to smoke.

I have two problems with this statement you make. First, I have a problem with the statement itself, and second, I have a problem with what you are. You are supposed to represent the Alliance for Sponsorship Freedom. Therefore, I have a double problem with the sponsored event and the decision to smoke.

I see the list of your members at the end. You say you have 105 members in Québec. However, in this list, we find the Hôtel Appartement Le Victoria, in Hull, the Hôtel Casa Bella, in Montréal, and the Hôtel Château Versailles, in Montréal. I have a problem reconciling many names of this list with what you say about your membership, on page 3, where you talk about "250 cultural, entertainment, fashion, and sports organizations and events." Many of the organizations listed do not fall in these categories, in my opinion. Do you have an explanation to give me about this?

Mr. Max Beck: Allow me to answer you in English.

[English]

On the second point, the vast bulk of our organizations are indeed arts, cultural, and sporting groups. Yes, we've put a few hotels...and a few other groups have asked to support us, largely because they're dependent a lot on our events to bring revenues to their organizations.

You may know there were some demonstrations in Montreal at one point on this very issue, and a lot of the people out demonstrating were from restaurants, hotels, etc., that were concerned about losing events like Juste pour rire and others.

On the first question, which is very similar to the question Mr. Thompson asked me about the direct evidence, we have asked and we have asked. And I don't pretend I'm a health expert, by the way, but we have tried to ask and understand, and a lot of our boards and a lot of organizations have tried to understand more on this issue. So we have asked for the evidence about whether there is this direct link about starting smoking.

• 1015

I don't deny that, yes, if you have the name Benson & Hedges and du Maurier and so forth up there, this will create some awareness of one brand versus another. But try to understand this: Does this poster for a fireworks show or a Just For Laughs comedy festival, because somewhere at the bottom of that poster it says “Brought to you by Player's”—or Benson & Hedges—make you decide to smoke? In fact we have not been able to see that evidence and there doesn't seem to be this direct link. They're aware that the names are there; they're aware that Benson & Hedges is a tobacco company; they know those things, but it's not clear this makes them decide to smoke.

The Chair: Okay, Mr. Beck, thank you very much. It seems that fireworks follow you no matter where you go.

Mr. Sweanor, Dr. Forbes, and Dr. Levy, it's been a very interesting morning. We thank you for taking the trouble to come and share your views and your findings with us. I'm sure they'll be helpful.

I'm going to give the committee about five minutes and then we're going to move to the rest of our business.

• 1017

• 1022

The Chair: Okay, colleagues, let's resume.

We were just asked whether we were in camera. The answer is no. And even if we were in camera, obviously, there are some recorders for the major press in the country. It's taped as well, and we can be as indiscreet as we like. We know that our words will be inscribed for posterity.

Colleagues, perhaps for a few minutes towards the end of this session I'd like to indicate that we will move the proceedings in camera.

We are now moving into clause-by-clause. We've asked representatives from Health Canada and the Department of Justice to be here with us to go through the clauses for the purposes of clarification, if—and I stress these words—if and when we need them.

From Health Canada we have Bill Maga. He is the head of the tobacco policy and coordination unit, health policy division, health policy and information directorate of the policy and consultation branch. That's a fairly brief description. We also have Chris McNaught from the Department of Justice.

I have one other piece of information. I know this is perhaps unnecessary for most members, but if you have amendments that you would like to propose and they are not accepted by the committee, then you may find yourself at a disadvantage if you wish to re-propose those amendments at report stage in the House. They will then be ruled out of order. You can propose anything you want here. I'm advising committee members who are unfamiliar with the process that when it comes into the House, you're then out of luck.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Chair, that only applies to the individual who is submitting the amendment, correct?

The Chair: That's correct.

• 1025

Mr. Greg Thompson: In other words, if Ms. Wasylycia-Leis submits an amendment, I do have the right to....

Okay, we see. We're straightforward on that.

The Chair: I'm so happy you agree.

Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Before we begin, I wonder if I could inform the committee that I received a response from Robert Parker, the person who appeared before the committee last week from the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council. I received a letter in response to my questions around portrayal and use of people who are underage in advertising. I'm not sure of the proper procedure, but I wonder if I could table the letter and have it circulated.

The Chair: It hasn't yet been translated, Judy, so until it gets translated we really can't give it to everybody. But there's no reason why people can't access it themselves; that is, if you make enough copies available on the table, that's fine.

We're in the process of trying to get that translated so that it can go to the entire committee.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Okay.

The Chair: I think Mr. Parker addressed it to you specifically. It was supposed to be sent here with sufficient time so that we could have the translation, but unfortunately that wasn't available for us.

Thank you for bringing that to our attention.

Ladies and gentlemen, I think you have before you, then, a copy of all the amendments from each and every one of those who proposed them. I believe you also have a copy of Bill C-42 before you. We'll be making reference to both documents as we go through this.

Do you have an amendment to clause 1, Madam Caplan?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Yes. I move that Bill C-42, in clause 1, be amended by (a) replacing line 4 on page 1 with the following:

1. Section 24 of the Tobacco Act is

and (b) deleting lines 12 to 14 on page 1.

Would you like me to explain?

Mr. Greg Thompson: Yes.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like it explained, because I think the proper word, instead of “deleting”, would be “replacing”.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Actually, yes, we are deleting this at this point, and we will be, with future amendments further on, as we have given notice, replacing it with other sections that will give greater clarity to the legislation.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Okay, that sounds acceptable until we get there, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Here we go. We vote on the amendment first.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I have a question.

The Chair: Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Since we're on this, and I'm not sure how we proceed, this proposed amendment then makes the amendment that was proposed by both myself and a member of the Reform Party redundant.

The Chair: That's true.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 1 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 2)

The Chair: Madam Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I'm assuming that the motions that are now redundant have been withdrawn.

• 1030

I move that clause 2 of Bill C-42 be amended by replacing lines 24 to 35 on page 1 with the following:

(2) Section 25 of the Act, as it read immediately before the coming into force of subsection (1), continues to apply until October 1, 2003 in relation to the display, on a permanent facility, of a tobacco product-related brand element that appeared on the facility on the day on which this Act comes into force.

Mr. Chairman, this actually implements the ban in this legislation, which has had broad support from everyone, and in fact improves the existing Tobacco Act, which is law in Canada as of today.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 2 as amended agreed to)

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: On a point of clarification, I would assume if we don't then move our amendment, it's automatically assumed we're not voting.

The Chair: Well, I'm just about to ask you. I mean, they are unnecessary, because they cover the same—

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I'm just saying, if we don't move them, then the matter is dealt with, right?

(On clause 3)

The Chair: Clause 3, Madam Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I move that clause 3 of Bill C-42 be amended by replacing lines 1 to 5 on page 2 with the following:

3. Paragraphs 33(c) and (d) of the Act are repealed.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 3 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 4)

The Chair: Madam Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Yes, I'm just looking to see when, Mr. Chairman, and during the explanation I will take it in sections:

I move that clause 4 of Bill C-42 be amended by replacing lines 7 to 44 on page 2 and lines 1 to 18 on page 3 with the following:

as subsection 66(1).

(2) Subsection 66(1) of the English version of the Act is replaced by the following:

Subsections 24(2) and (3)

66.(1) Subsections 24(2) and (3) come into force on October 1, 1998 or on any earlier day that the Governor in Council may fix by order.

(3) Section 66 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1):

Application delayed—sponsorship before April 25, 1997

(2) If a tobacco product-related brand element was displayed, at any time between January 25, 1996 and April 25, 1997, in promotional material that was used in the sponsorship of an event or activity that took place in Canada, subsections 24(2) and (3) do not apply until

(a) October 1, 2000 in relation to the display of a tobacco product-related brand element in promotional material that is used in the sponsorship of that event or activity or of a person or entity participating in that event or activity; and

(b) October 1, 2003 in relation to the display referred to in paragraph (a) on the site of the event or activity for the duration of the event or activity or for any other period that may be prescribed.

• 1035

Would anyone like an explanation?

The Chair: We will just go through that.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: There's one more section, (3). I've got it.

(3) Subsections 24(2) and (3) apply from October 1, 2000 to October 1, 2003 to prohibit the furnishing to the public, on the site of an event or activity to which paragraph (2)(b) applies, of promotional material that displays a tobacco product-related brand element otherwise than in conformity with subsection 24(2).

The Chair: Are there any comments?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: This actually is the substantive amendment. It implements the 15-month retroactive date to the time of the announcement of April 25, 1997, as was requested by the Canadian Cancer Society.

That is now in place. It specifies very clearly that the events had to take place in Canada. It implements as well the original intent of the legislation, which was to ensure all events, and particularly individuals participating in events, be treated fairly and equally. Further, it also responds to some of the concerns we had about promotional materials, t-shirts, and so forth by being very clear in saying it prohibits the furnishing to the public, on the site of an event, of promotional materials that can then be taken off-site.

If there are any questions we'd be happy to answer them, but this is the substantive part of the bill.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Certainly I support the amendment to this section as far as it goes, but my proposal is for a further amendment. I don't know whether it's an amendment to the amendment, or whether we want to deal with this first, and then I move mine. Mine pertains to the question of off-site and retail advertising.

The Chair: Let's deal with this one. I think yours is a little different. So let's deal with this one and then we'll come back to yours.

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: Shall the amended clause carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: No.

The Chair: No? I thought you said you supported it.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I said this clause, but—

The Chair: You have a different one.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: It's part of clause 4. I don't want to lose the opportunity to raise this.

The Chair: Okay, so you wanted to add something.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes. You'll have to bear with me, because I'm not sure now, given the amendment we just agreed to, how it actually should read. I will put the amendment in terms of the intention so that it would in effect be an amendment to—

The Chair: One moment, Judy.

Madam Picard, you have a copy. Unfortunately it's only in English, I think.

[Translation]

Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): No, I have no French copy.

[English]

The Chair: Yes. It's just in English. It's something Judy is proposing from the floor, so nobody's had an opportunity to—

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: That's not what I'm dealing with right now.

The Chair: You're not dealing with this one.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: No.

The Chair: I thought you were dealing with that one. Sorry.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: No. I'm sorry. I'll give you the background and you tell me where to put it.

The Chair: Why don't you just tell us what you're dealing with.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Turn to the amendment circulated; it's reference 1230 in your package. My proposed amendment is partly covered by Elinor Caplan's package, which we just agreed to, but it does not deal with the question of limitations based on display of tobacco-product-related brand material at the retail level.

• 1040

My amendment is to ensure that we have further restrictions in subclause 4(2) that would in fact limit activity so that sponsorship advertising is not allowed at the retail sector. That's outlined in my amendment before you in this package in both languages.

The Chair: Judy, because this is an addition to the clause we just accepted as amended—

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I was trying to ask about this. I didn't want it moved until I had—

The Chair: Well, that's fine, but we thought you were operating on the basis of this one.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Oh, no.

The Chair: But it has already been adopted. You would probably be well advised to present it at report stage, where you can still present it.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Chairperson, with due respect, I did try to seek clarification before agreeing to the amendments in clause 4 in order to find the best way to move this amendment.

I would ask then for the unanimous consent of the committee to go back to this and allow me to put the further amendment to subclause 4(2).

The Chair: It was thought that you were operating under this one here, but if the rest of the committee will agree, we can go back and just revisit your clause and include it as part of that item.

Okay, we'll do that. We're back on clause 4.

Judy, do you want to finish your presentation?

Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I have a comment.

The Chair: Yes, go ahead.

Mr. Ovid Jackson: I think if anybody moves an amendment, another person could try to alter that amendment. That's normal. However, unless the chair rules that it substantially alters the intent, then I think Ms. Wasylycia-Leis had a point. So she could not be disallowed unless her amendment substantially changes the intent of what we were trying to do. Was that the ruling of the chair?

Ms. Maria Minna: Yes, we're going back.

Mr. Ovid Jackson: So it didn't alter the intent.

Ms. Maria Minna: No, we're allowing it. We're going back.

Mr. Ovid Jackson: Okay. Procedurally, that's what we should have done.

The Chair: Go ahead, Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: My amendment is listed under reference 1230. I'm referring to part (b) of that composite amendment. Part (a) has been dealt with; part (b) has not been dealt with. So my motion is to add to subclause 4(2), wherever appropriate, based on the amendment that has just passed, after the words

person, entity, event or activity if

—this is part (b), which is below part (a)—

(b) the display of the tobacco product-related brand element is not at retail.

The Chair: Okay. Are there any comments?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I'd like an explanation of what that means.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Certainly. The intent of this amendment is something we've talked about over in the last couple of sittings of the committee. It's to deal with the question of promotional advertising that is off-site. It deals with the fact that the bill now would allow promotional advertising to take place at the retail outlet and in places where young people congregate and are exposed to that whole message being delivered through the guise of promotional sponsorship advertising.

It could have been worded in different ways. The Canadian Cancer Society proposed a similar amendment that maybe is clearer:

No person may display a tobacco-product-related brand element or the name of a tobacco manufacturer in a promotion that is used, directly or indirectly, in the promotion of a person

Am I reading the right one? Let me just check with Rob.

• 1045

We've been through this around the whole question of off-site advertising. That's what this amendment is proposing to do, and I think this is the only place to put it in terms of Bill C-42. This proposed wording is from legislative counsel, and I hope it's clear.

The Chair: Shall we deal with this as a subamendment? Do you have a...?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Yes, now that I understand the intent of the amendment, I think it really does run contrary, given the fact that this bill very clearly puts in place the phase-in of what is permitted off-site during the creative time when there are just two seasons remaining, and it then implements the 90-10 rule on-site. As it stands, I think the legislation accomplishes the intent of a phase-in leading to a complete ban, so this amendment is not appropriate.

(Subamendment negatived)

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 4 as amended agreed to)

The Chair: Just have patience for a moment. We're trying to deal with the proposal by one of our colleagues.

I think we have before us the item the chair was dealing with a moment or two ago. Are there other proposals by members around the table? Judy?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I would like to take the opportunity to raise one of the amendments that is included in the package and is translated into both official languages. It deals with limits on expenditures. Is this the appropriate time to do so?

The Chair: Are you talking about this?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: No, forget that for now. I'm trying to deal with the amendments we circulated in advance. They were translated.

(On clause 5—Day to be prescribed)

The Chair: We're going to go to clause 5, Judy.

Madam Caplan.

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

I move that Bill C-42, in clause 5, be amended by replacing lines 19 to 21 on page 3 with the following:

Coming into force

5. (1) Sections 1 and 3 come into force on October 1, 2003.

Coming into force

(2) Subsection 66(2) of the Act, except paragraph (b), as enacted by section 4, is deemed to have come into force on October 1, 1998.

Coming into force

(3) Paragraph 66(2)(b) and subsection 66(3) of the Act, as enacted by section 4, come into force on October 1, 2000.

I think it's self-explanatory. These are the prescribed dates. The amendment makes it very clear that October 1, 1998, is the enactment date, and also sets in place the phasing. I would hope that everyone will support this.

• 1050

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 5 as amended agreed to)

The Chair: Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: On item 10, let me refer back to reference 1234 and recommend that we add a paragraph that would read as follows:

The total cost of expenditures in relation to the sponsorship of a person, entity, event or activity under subsections (2) and (3) for any 12-month period ending on October 1 during the periods of the time referred to in the previous section shall not exceed the total cost of such expenditures for the 12-month period ending on April 25, 1997.

The Chair: We've already dealt with that clause as clause 4, and we're not going to go back to it. As the clerk has indicated to you, what we can do is deal with this clause that you wanted to propose.

If you wish, as I indicated earlier, we can move this at report stage. Because we've gone line by line, that's already been dealt with, okay? At report stage you can go back to it.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Chairperson, I appreciate that, and I certainly will if I have to. I would like you to understand that we presented amendments in good faith; the package is before you. You left no opportunity for us to proceed through this package in an orderly way—

The Chair: It's line by line.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: And you focused on this other amendment that I have not yet moved and I don't know if I intend to move. I have simply asked for a way in which to deal with this huge package of amendments and to find a first opportunity to raise it.

Mr. Chairperson, I don't think you have acted in a way that would allow us to present the amendments as we go through this package. I would ask either for the committee to accept how I've presented it, given the fact that you've not allowed any opportunity under clause 4, or to return to clause 4 so I can move the amendment.

The Chair: Look, Judy, I gave everybody an ample opportunity. I'll go back to the committee and see if there's unanimous consent to revisit clause 4 so that you can present it under clause 4. When we go line by line, we go line by line.

Do I have the unanimous consent of the committee?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Okay. Judy, we're up to item 10, clause 4. Go ahead.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I move that Bill C-42 in clause 4 be amended by replacing lines 6 to 10 on page 3 with the following:

(5) The total cost of expenditures in relation to the sponsorship of a person, entity, event or activity under subsections (2) and (3) for any 12-month period ending on October 1 during the periods of time referred to in the previous section shall not exceed the total cost of such expenditures for the 12-month period ending on April 25, 1997.

The Chair: Are there any comments?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Chairperson, this is one of the other amendments that most of those who presented to this committee in deliberations on Bill C-42 recommended and supported. It's one of the areas the parliamentary secretary indicated she would be giving some serious consideration to and listening for comments from the witnesses.

• 1055

It is an important amendment in terms of leading to the total ban on sponsorship advertising. As we know, it's something that is now included. For example, in the Quebec tobacco act it was approved last June unanimously, and it was recognized as an important method to ensure dependency is not increased and the situation is not allowed to get worse.

I think we've all acknowledged there has to be a transition from tobacco sponsorship to sponsorship by other organizations. Some of us have indicated it would have been preferable to have the government provide some transition funds for organizations sponsoring important sports and cultural events in this country. But given the absence of such a commitment before us today, I think we have to do everything possible to improve this piece of legislation to ensure dependency is not increased under Bill C-42.

I think this is a reasonable amendment. We heard today from Mr. Sweanor that we're not talking about an impossible-to-implement provision, that the number of sponsors we're talking about is relatively small, and that there is certainly every possibility within government to monitor the level of expenditures and to enforce a reasonable limit on expenditures in the sponsorship promotion area.

I would urge the committee to give serious consideration to this in the spirit of moving toward a responsible, meaningful policy to curb smoking among young people.

The Chair: Reed.

Mr. Reed Elley: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to support this amendment. I think a number of witnesses who came before us were concerned the tobacco companies would use any kind of a loophole they saw within the legislation to once again pour money and resources into this kind of sponsorship during a certain time period. I think this closes the loophole effectively, and I would support this amendment.

The Chair: Madam Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: In fact, Mr. Chairman, the government very seriously considered this. As I said in my opening remarks, the concern we have is both the feasibility and the enforcement. We have not had any explanation on how other jurisdictions believe they might be able to do this.

Our view is this. Given that we are moving to a ban, and that the efforts of the organizations should be going into finding new sponsors, the complexity, cost, and types of audits that would be required might not be feasible. The conclusion we have come to is that this provision wouldn't really be enforceable.

We would hope that whenever the Government of Canada commits to do something, we do it and we believe we can do it. As much as we believe moving toward a total ban as quickly as possible is the most important element in this legislation and that's where the efforts should be focused, we don't believe this is enforceable. Nor is it practical or feasible.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: We will go back and repeat what we said earlier on about clause 4 as the amendment. I just want to finish it. That's the government's clause 4.

(Clause 4 as amended agreed to)

The Chair: We've already done clause 5.

No, you don't want to?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: No.

The Chair: Okay, fair enough.

Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the bill carry as amended?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the committee order a reprint for use at report stage?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the chair table the bill in the House with amendments, as the third report of the committee?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: That's it. I'm surprised.

We'll go in camera for about five minutes. The regular meeting is closed to the call of the chair.

[Proceedings continue in camera]