Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs,
Science and Technology
Issue 11 - Evidence - May 12, 1998 (10:00 a.m.)
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 12, 1998
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, to which was referred Bill S-13, to incorporate and to establish an industry levy to provide for the Canadian Tobacco Industry Community Responsibility Foundation, met this day at 10:00 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Lowell Murray (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, we are beginning consideration of Bill S-13, to incorporate and to establish an industry levy to provide for the Canadian Tobacco Industry Community Responsibility Foundation. This is a bill much debated, much discussed and commented upon in the nation's media and elsewhere.
We are beginning a fairly intensive round of hearings on the bill. This morning we will hear from the principal sponsors of the bill, and then we will proceed to a discussion of what might be called the dimensions of the smoking problem in Canada, in respect of which we have a number of expert witnesses. This afternoon, we will be hearing from the tobacco industry and from a number of other witnesses who have a particular perspective on this bill.
For now, we will open consideration of this bill by hearing from its co-sponsors, our colleagues Senator Colin Kenny and Senator Pierre Claude Nolin, who will make an opening statement, after which I will invite questions from colleagues.
Hon. Colin Kenny: Honourable senators, it is a privilege to appear before this committee. I must confess that it is a bit unusual to be sitting at this end of the table. You all looked much friendlier when I was sitting at the other end. Here, I am a little less certain.
Why are we here today? We are here because 40,000 Canadians die every year from tobacco-related diseases. To put that in context, the next closest cause of preventable death in Canada is auto accidents, including drunk driving, which kills 4,000 Canadians per year. Tobacco-related disease, by a factor of 10, is the most important health crisis facing Canadians today.
Second, there are some disproportionalities that I would like the committee to think about. The federal government collects $2.03 billion -- that is 2,000 million dollars -- per year from tobacco taxes, but it only spends $10 million per year to combat youth smoking. This works out to half of 1 cent of every dollar the federal government collects from the sale of tobacco products.
It is very interesting to note that the federal government spends 33 cents per capita on youth education and cessation programs, and we have a 30 per cent smoking rate amongst young people in Canada. In the state of California, which has about the same population as Canada, they spend $4 per capita, and they have a youth smoking rate of just under 11 per cent -- think about it; just under 11 per cent.
I would ask Senator Nolin, now, if he could describe the program for the day.
[Translation]
Hon. Pierre Claude Nolin: Honorable Senators, it is a pleasure for me as well to be here today. I must admit that I am accustomed to being on the other side of the table, but I will be more than happy to answer your questions.
As the Chairman mentioned at the start of the meeting, we have a rather full schedule today. We intend to thoroughly focus on this issue in order to fully understand the solutions that we are proposing in Bill S-13.
We will begin this morning by describing for you the extent of the problem. It is important for you to understand the growing problem of smoking among youth. You will be able to see for yourselves that programs aimed at combating the problem of smoking among young people are seriously underfunded. We will also be looking at the mortality rate and the harmful health effects associated with smoking as compared to other predictable causes of death. Lastly, we will examine this issue from an international perspective and look at the historical dimensions of this health crisis.
For Panel 2, the committee has invited representatives of the tobacco industry. It is important that we hear that views of these individuals since the aim of the bill is to implement tobacco industry objectives.
Panel 3 will provide the committee with an opportunity to consider some of the measures that have been taken in other jurisdictions, in California and in Massachusetts among others. We will hear from witnesses who will describe for us the steps taken by authorities in these two U.S. states to combat this problem.
Panel 4 will focus on the psychological aspects of smoking. We will look at the factors that motivate young people, in particular young girls, to take up smoking. We will see how positive programs have been developed, programs that need ongoing financial support.
A number of successful programs introduced have had to be terminated for lack of funding. It is important that the committee understand what motivates young people. Self-esteem, peer pressure, the desire, particularly among young girls, to stay slim, and why young people start smoking in the first place are all factors that need to be considered. Often, smoking is an act of rebellion against adults.
In Panel 5, we will examine the whole issue of tobacco company sponsorship of cultural and sporting events, as this is an important part of our bill. As you know, pursuant to Bill C-71, tobacco company sponsorship of such events will end this coming October 1. We will weigh the economic considerations and the importance of continuing to support, on a declining scale, activities which are important, among others, to the Quebec economy.
The final panel will examine the technical aspects of the bill. How will the foundation be administered? Undoubtedly you will have some questions for the witnesses because some appear to be of the opinion that our bill is unconstitutional. These hearings will show that this is indeed not the case.
At the conclusion of the panels, Senator Kenny and I will have some closing remarks and will answer any questions arising from the testimony heard during the course of today's and tomorrow's hearings.
[English]
Senator Kenny: You have before you, honourable senators, a copy of a summary of the proposed Tobacco Industry Responsibility Act. It should be available to everyone. It lays the bill out in a schematic form.
There are two reasons that this bill is going ahead. The first is that the Tobacco Act, Bill C-71, made no funding available to young people. The existing programs, in our view, are insufficient, and this bill endeavours to remedy that. Second, the phase-out period for the arts and sports groups was too short. Their funding will stop as of October 1, 1998. If you turn to page 2 of the bill, you will see that it provides for an extended phase-out period, reducing it 20 per cent a year for the next five years, which gives them a more reasonable period of time to find replacement sponsors.
Honourable senators, in a nutshell, that is why we are sponsoring this bill.
[Translation]
The Chairman: We have about 20 minutes remaining before we hear from our next witness. Are there any questions?
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Mr. Chairman, do you intend to invite the Health Minister to testify? Was he consulted and was he aware of the senators' plans to table this bill?
The Chairman: I will let either Senator Kenny or Senator Nolin tackle the second part of your question. As for the first part, we have already invited the Health Minister and the Industry Minister to testify on the bill before this committee. Unfortunately, these two ministers are out of the country at this time.
We have also invited officials from Health Canada to appear. Arrangements have not yet been finalized. We have not yet decided on a date or time for departmental officials to appear.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: The two ministers will not be away for three weeks. Is Minister Rock planning to be away for longer than that?
[English]
The Chairman: I cannot answer that question. I can tell you that both ministers have been invited, both have declined, and it is not yet certain whether we will have public servant officials from one or the other, or from both departments. As of this moment, none has been scheduled, although the invitation has gone forward.
Senator Kenny: I would be pleased to respond to the question of Senator Lavoie-Roux.
Yes, there have been consultations with both Health Canada the Department of Finance. Both departments are very aware of the bill. The chair has advised you that they are not available now, and that is correct. I have been further advised that they do not expect to be available or to have their officials available for the duration of the hearings on this bill. In essence, I have been advised that they would sooner see this bill come forward and see what they have to say about it, and then intervene, if they feel it is appropriate to intervene, when it gets to the other place.
Senator Cohen: Senator Nolin, you mentioned in your opening statement that there are some people who feel the bill is not constitutional. I do not know if you can give me an answer in less than the 20 minutes allowed to us, but before we hear from other witnesses, I wish to know, generally, why these people feel it is not constitutional?
Senator Nolin: We will have ample time to get into that discussion when we hear from the proper witness; I am far from being the proper witness to answer that question. Let me say, however, that, like every other question that arises in this Parliament, the constitutional question is always there. Their main argument is based on the fact that it is a provincial matter, that it should not be dealt with by the Parliament of Canada. That is their principal objection.
Senator Kenny: Panel F will deal with the technical and legal aspects of it. We have a speaker's ruling before us. This bill is properly before the committee in every respect. The chair will confirm that. Constitutional questions will ultimately be decided in the courts and not by the Senate of Canada. Therefore, I ask you to keep your question in suspension until panel F is before us. We have purposely brought experts before the committee to answer those questions.
Senator Cools: Senator Kenny has answered some of my questions, but I would remind the chairman, and colleagues, that the committee is the master of its proceedings and it can call who it wishes. I am much more interested in hearing from these two witnesses, if they could give us supporting information, on how they developed the bill. You are the first witnesses, not the last, and this is your opportunity to be witnesses before us, in the traditional sense of the term "witness." Other questions can be put to other witnesses. I would expect that the chairman will be planning to call the various departments and the relevant ministers, and so on.
Perhaps, Senator Nolin, you can tell us, in political and social terms, why you think this bill is necessary.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: Allow me to answer your question in the other official language. When the committee examined Bill C-71 last year, it noted two serious shortcomings. You may recall that the report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee mentioned these shortcomings.
Bill C-71 was adopted by the Senate just as the last Parliament was wrapping up. Everyone knows that this decision was fraught with political implications. The bill's main shortcoming was the lack of appropriate funding for positive programs aimed at young persons. The measures advocated were primarily coercive. The federal government would derive its authority over health care from its authority over criminal matters. This was the first major shortcoming.
[English]
Senator Cools: Is that in the legal field or in the criminal field?
Senator Nolin: The criminal field.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: The second shortcoming came to light during consideration of Bill C-71. I am referring to the demise of tobacco company sponsorship of sporting and cultural events.
The identification by the legal and constitutional affairs committee of these two shortcomings prompted us to introduce this bill.
[English]
Senator Kenny: I draw to your attention the report tabled by Senator Corsairs, on behalf of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs committee last year, on Bill C-71, where the committee recommended that the government take further steps in precisely the areas that Senator Nolin has discussed, that the committee, at the time, recognized that the transition period for the groups that were dependent on tobacco funding was too short. They also recognized that the amount of resources being allocated to getting young people off tobacco was insufficient.
You will recall that, at the time I introduced amendments to Bill C-71, there was a rush to the election. The message came from the government that, if the Senate proceeded to adopt amendments and send the bill back to the House, the whole bill would be lost. We were required to decide whether we wanted half a loaf or a whole loaf. We are back here today before you, honourable senators, to get the other half of the loaf.
We are putting the case that the $10 million that the government is spending on anti-smoking and cessation programs with young people, and the further $10 million it is spending on enforcement, is simply not enough. There is something wildly disproportionate, and something wrong in our society, if we are having 40,000 people dying a year and we are only spending $20 million to address the problem.
Imagine it in terms of two airplanes crashing. If two 747 airplanes crashed this week, and every week for the next 52 weeks, the number of people involved would be 40,000. If Canadians were dying like that, we would be sitting here night and day trying to figure out a solution. We would not be talking about a $120 million solution; we would be talking about really big bucks.
In all of World War II, only 43,000 Canadians died in combat, yet 40,000 Canadians die every year to somebody's marketing plan. Think about it. There is something disproportionate in the government's response to this problem. Therefore, what we have tried to do is to bring forward to you what is principally an effort to attack youth smoking. Nobody starts smoking at the age of 35, 43, 52; they start when they are kids of 9, 10, 11 years of age. That is where we must focus our effort.
The purpose of this legislation is to target those people at the community level, in combination with regional programs. As well, we would like to see the development of an impactful national media program. This bill provides for that opportunity.
An injustice was done by Bill C-71 to arts and sports groups, as well as to the farmers, who deserve to have time to move elsewhere for support or to move to other crops. You cannot just chop them off after 18 months. Five years is reasonable. We asked them how much time and money they needed. This was the best we could come forward with.
We are here today because we want this committee to consider the issue in the following context: Do you feel it is proportionate? Do you think we should be doing more to solve this problem? If so, is this bill the vehicle you want to use?
Senator Cools: You referred to the report by Senator Carstairs. I have a copy of that report in front of me. I believe you were referring to the 24th report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on Bill C-71.
I believe that you referred to the following paragraph:
In addition, your Committee strongly recommends that the government find, by public and private means, transitional funding to allow artistic, cultural and sporting groups to obtain alternatives to the monies now provided by tobacco companies to sponsor their activities.
These events are important to the people of Canada, and Canadians do not want them to cease. Your Committee recognizes that many groups have sacrificed and sought alternative funding over the past five years, and they should be congratulated. However, the urgency presently exists for those who accept tobacco sponsorship, and they will need both public and private support over the next three to five years.
I just wanted to put that on the record.
Senator Callbeck: You have presented some very alarming statistics this morning. I agree, as I am sure we all do, that more must be done in this area.
In Prince Edward Island, we have the highest rate of daily smokers of any province in Canada. That was confirmed by a Health Canada study.
I am wondering about the process. You mentioned $60 million going to programs with emphasis on health education and smoking. How will that money get into the hands of the community groups? Is that something you wish to speak to this morning or will witnesses be addressing that?
Senator Kenny: The witnesses will be addressing that, but I would be happy to give you a short summary of that process.
One of the beauties of this bill is that it imposes a levy and not a tax. Therefore, the funds go directly from the tobacco manufacturers to the foundation, which is established in the bill. If it were a tax, the funds would go into the Consolidated Revenue Fund and would have to be appropriated out on a regular basis.
Later today, you will hear a witness from California who will describe how politicians there started taking the money out of the fund they had and diverting it for other purposes.
The proposed foundation will elect a board of directors, and the board will entertain applications from groups from across the country. In fact, the board will seek out applications, because one of the aims is to start at the local level; the aim is to establish programs in the YM-YWCAs, the Boys and Girls Clubs and in the schools.
You will hear witnesses who are expert in this area who will explain that you must attack the problem from a great many directions. There is no one solution; there is no silver bullet; there is no magic way to suddenly get all the adolescents in Canada to stop smoking.
You will hear experts describe the various reasons youngsters smoke. You will also hear them suggest that, to get them to change their behaviour, you need to create a range of programs, to respond to their different concerns and needs.
Senator Callbeck, we hope that a broad range of varying programs will exist across the country. We badly need a vehicle to communicate the successes and failures. One of the main problems, which has become apparent to Senator Nolin and I, is that, although we already have some terrific groups doing a marvellous job, they are missing money.
I know of a group that is involved in disseminating information from one part of the country to another, and it is folding this week due to lack of funds. That makes no sense. We need these groups. I believe that our role as politicians is to facilitate this. We must facilitate the people who are working at the community level to implement the solutions that exist but which cannot be implemented because of lack of funding.
Senator Callbeck: Will there be representation from every province on the board of directors?
Senator Kenny: Not necessarily. The directors will be elected by the foundation. There will be provincial representation, but it is not specified in the bill that there be representation from every province. It will be up to the foundation to nominate and elect its own directors, as would any organization.
The Chairman: Senator Kenny and Senator Nolin, as co-sponsors of the bill, will have the right to appear as the final witnesses on this bill, to comment on testimony that we will have heard in the meantime.
Thank you, senators.
I will call the next witnesses to the table. Their panel numbers four, and they will discuss the dimensions of the smoking problem in Canada.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: I would like to express the wish that we regularly re-invite the ministers. I know that eventually, in the chamber and in the House of Commons, they will able to express their opinion. However, we do not want to wait for a year and a half before this bill is adopted. We are getting close to the end of the session. Therefore, if there are corrections which must be made, we should make them.
The Chairman: Senator, if the ministers have a scheduling problem, they can be assured that this committee will do everything to accommodate their problem. If, however, it is a matter of policy or strategy on their part not to appear at this time before this committee, we must respect that. It is a private member's bill. The invitations have been extended. We have also told them that it is acceptable to the committee for officials to appear, should they so desire. We have received no assurance to date that those departments will be represented by either ministers or officials.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Could the invitation be repeated?
The Chairman: The invitation will be re-issued, together with the record of your comments and what I take to be the sentiments of committee.
Senator Kenny: I am advised that it is not a scheduling problem but a matter of how they choose to approach the bill. However, please go ahead with the additional invitation, if you feel it is appropriate.
The Chairman: We will now hear a discussion of the dimension of the smoking problem in this country. We have with us four witnesses for that purpose.
Please proceed.
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Gauvin, Coordinator, Quebec Coalition for Tobacco Control: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for inviting the Quebec Coalition for Tobacco Control to present its viewpoint on the contentious issue of tobacco use in Quebec. Before I continue, Senator Callbeck from Prince Edward Island mentioned her province's ignominious ranking. When it comes to smoking in Canada, her province is first and we are second, or vice versa. We also want to thank you for inviting us to speak to the bill sponsored by senators Nolin and Kenny.
We want to make it clear right away that we endorse the bill now before the committee. It is consistent with the coalition's demands since its inception. I will talk to you briefly about the coalition in a few moments.
The proposed legislation is currently the only federal initiative which proposes a financial solution to the sponsorship dilemma. As you may already know, Quebec's Finance Minister Bernard Landry has proposed a tobacco tax levy of $12 million which would be invested in a fund to assist sponsorship of cultural and sporting events in Quebec. However, this amount is nowhere near enough. It is estimated that industry sponsorship represents an investment of $25 million in the province. The bill now before us would certainly be a valuable adjunct from a financial standpoint.
Senator Kenny mentioned earlier that the bill provides for a substantial increase in funding of anti-smoking programs and campaigns which not only are underfunded today, but which have a difficult time keeping pace with the well- orchestrated, generously funded tobacco industry campaigns. The bill could also result in less tobacco advertising.
A few brief words now about our organization. Eight health-care groups came together two years ago to form the Quebec Coalition for Tobacco Control. Today, our membership includes 660 agencies and institutions from every region of the province of Quebec, including 250 municipalities, schools, school boards, hospitals, local community service centers, youth groups, student associations and community groups.
Membership requires that the board of directors of institutions or organizations, or in the case of municipalities, the municipal council, adopt a formal resolution duly moved and passed by board or council members.
Regarding the specific problem of smoking in Quebec, to understand the situation, it is important to recall two major events that have occurred in recent years. The first was the lowering of cigarette taxes in 1994 which cut the price of a pack of cigarettes by 50 per cent. The second was the 1995 Supreme Court ruling which heralded the return of tobacco advertising. Twenty years of hard work and anti-smoking and education efforts targeting young persons in particular were wiped out by these two decisions. While the Supreme Court reinstated the right of tobacco companies to advertise their product, sponsorship was something that had never been restricted or prohibited. Sponsorship continues and is a growing phenomenon.
Given the funding available, it is difficult for anti-smoking programs to present themselves as an attractive alternative. Last year, Jacques Villeneuve wore the colours of a cigarette company. The lasting image was one of a hero and his car decked out in the colors of a tobacco company.
Once again this year, Montreal will play host to the Grand Prix. At one time, Rothman's sponsored this event, but this year, the race will be known as the Players Grand Prix. Undoubtedly the same can be said for every major Canadian city, be it Montreal, Toronto, or Vancouver, but at certain times of the year, we get the impression that these cities become one big cigarette advertisement.
Why does the industry choose automobile racing as an advertising medium? The answer can be seen here on this overhead:
The Formula 1 car is the most powerful advertising space in the world.
That just about says it all. This ad appeared in the July 14, 1994 edition of the Tobacco Reporter. It urges tobacco companies to sponsor a Formula 1 car because it is the most powerful advertising space in the world, not to mention a lucrative investment for them. For anywhere from $50,000 up to $40 million, a company can have its name on a car or even own the entire vehicle. BAT, the British multinational, went so far as to purchase Tyrell and its stable of racing cars for $500 million US. Therefore, advertising must be more than a little profitable for the industry.
The next slide shows the Grand Prix in Trois-Rivières. I attended this event last year and if you take a look just next to the winner's arm, you will see a father and son. Many children attend these events. Children come to expect tobacco companies to invest in events of this nature.
These days, the newspapers are running a contest for young persons to test drive a Formula 1 simulator. They can enter to win a trip to an Indy Cart race in California. It is estimated that tobacco companies spend $60 million on sponsorship in Canada, and $25 million in Quebec alone. Let us take a closer look at how major cities come to resemble giant cigarette packages.
Consider the former Players International Tennis Championships. Du Maurier has now taken over as of the sponsor of this tournament. The next slide shows the Matinee International. The stands and the seats are decked out in the colors of the cigarette package. It is as if the spectators are sitting squarely in the middle of a cigarette package.
The following two slides show the du Maurier Arts Foundation which sponsors approximately 215 events across Canada, including the du Maurier tennis championships which will be held this coming August.
Mr. Claude Cossette, a Quebec pioneer in the field of communications, and Mr. Normand Turgeon, a professor of marketing, are of the opinion that sponsorship encourages young people to start smoking. According to Claude Cossette, young people are brainwashed in primary school into believing that smoking is bad for them. However, when it comes to interesting cultural and sporting events, tobacco, which once had such a bad reputation, is seen as having positive qualities. Tobacco manufacturers look favorably upon sponsorship because it allows them to associate well-known personalities with cigarette brands. Last year, Jacques Villeneuve's name became synonymous with Rothman's. This year, Martina Hingis will lend some luster to the du Maurier Grand Prix. Tobacco is transformed from a product which damages people's lungs to something which, in the minds of young people, is synonymous with a great sports performance, courage and strength. This type of persuasion is insidious because in the minds of young people, the sponsor's products ultimately take on the characteristics of the events or the sports hero.
The return of tobacco advertising and ongoing tobacco sponsorship in Quebec has produced the following results: 13,000 deaths a year, or 30 a day, directly attributable to smoking.
Over the past five years, the number of young people ages 11 through 17 who smoke has doubled, up from 19 per cent to 38 per cent. A total of 200,000 young people, or an additional 20,000 a year, are now hooked on cigarettes. This is the equivalent of one full school bus of young persons a day becoming addicted to cigarettes. Among young adolescent girls, 45 per cent, or one in two, smoke. Five years ago, among 11- to 13-year-olds, the figure was 12 per cent. Today, 32 per cent of youths in this age group smoke. They are the adult smokers of tomorrow.
Mr. Turgeon surveyed approximately 150 companies which rely on tobacco sponsorship. He found that sponsorship was intended to increase sales. We have no doubt about that whatsoever. When we respond that this is not what tobacco manufacturers are claiming -- no doubt that is what they will tell us this afternoon -- his answer is that tobacco companies are simply not telling the truth.
The du Maurier Summer Jazz Festival, the Matinee fashion foundation, the Just for Laughs Festival and fireworks spectaculars are just some of the sponsored events taking place across Canada.
In Australia, which has adopted the foundation model, all professional and amateur sports teams now receive financial assistance from foundations and instead of promoting tobacco, they are involved in anti-smoking efforts. The Australian football league is now 100 per cent smoke free. A young women's basketball team is involved in promoting anti-smoking slogans.
In the medium and long-term, we hope that Bill S-13 reduces the visibility of tobacco products so that perhaps one day other children, like Gabriel who is eight years old, will be able to draw their inspiration from Lucky Luke and threaten a cigarette with the following words: Do not smoke or I will turn you into Swiss cheese.
[English]
Ms Cynthia Callard, Executive Director, Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada: I should say at the outset that although I am executive director of Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada, I am not a physician. My job is not to treat tobacco disease. I have been asked by my members, who spend their days doing that, to do something they consider more effective and certainly more humane, which is to work on prevention.
No matter how hard I work over the next decade, I will not be able to accomplish what you and your colleagues can do in one week.
[Translation]
I endorse this bill, but it is up to you and your colleagues to implement it.
[English]
By passing this bill, you can avert much more human suffering than a doctor can in a lifetime. I have been given 10 minutes to speak on the impact of smoking. It takes much less than 10 minutes to remind you of the ultimate impact of cigarettes -- tobacco kills.
I have on the chart here, the breakdown of the deaths in Canada this year.
[Translation]
Tobacco kills 40,000 Canadians every year.
[English]
It kills one in two smokers; it is responsible for one in five Canadian funerals. Tobacco causes all the diseases that are listed on the cigarette package, but it causes a lot more. When drugs like thalidomide, or devices like the Dalkon shield, and so forth, were found to cause diseases, they were taken off the market or they came with extra warnings. On this package, and all the others like it, there is no warning about gangrene, there is no warning about impotence or ear infections in children, or miscarriages or cancer of the cervix.
One of the dilemmas in my job is that, when you speak about the deaths caused by tobacco, eyes tend to glaze over. Somehow these deaths have become normalized. We know this already, we have heard it for years, we do not care any more.
I do not fully understand the acceptance of tobacco deaths. Senator Kenny referred earlier to "proportionality." The numbers attributed to alcohol deaths include traffic accident deaths, therefore, they need some reconfiguring. No matter how you shape it, tobacco is far and away the leading cause of preventable death.
The scale is daunting. For each of the 40,000 Canadians who die from smoking each year, each has 15 years of life. If you consider the number of life years lost in Canada every year, that is 640,000 life years lost. Line them up and pass them into the history, you end up at 638,000 B.C. Even if all those who die of AIDS and car accidents are 10 years old, and you are looking at a much longer life expectancy, you only come up with 10,000 or 15,000 years of life. Tobacco eclipses all other preventable causes of death.
Why do we accept these deaths? Do we assume that somehow those who die are complicit, that this is a choice made by them? Some who will appear before you will make that argument. I want you to look at the third leading cause of death -- again, related to smoking. In this case, the cause of death is not primary smoking but second-hand smoking. About four months ago, the report that I am showing you came out. It is one of the most significant contributions to public health knowledge. It is a California-based study. This exhaustive review looks at the causes of second-hand smoke.
I mentioned that tobacco kills, but it also kills non-smokers. It chokes them, it clogs up their arteries with plaque that causes heart attacks and strokes. It rots out their lungs with cancers. Tobacco kills one in two smokers, but it also kills about one in 5,000 non-smokers.
Four times as many Canadians die from smoking as die from industrial accidents. Every three days, a Canadian baby dies from sudden infant death syndrome caused by smoking in the home. Two infants die every month from bronchitis or pneumonia triggered by smoking in the home. Looking at these numbers, you will not be surprised when the tobacco industry does not support the kind of initiative which will fund this kind of research into tobacco in Canada.
Children are the most susceptible to second-hand smoke because their immune systems and their lungs are more vulnerable. Second-hand smoke not only kills children, it makes them sick. About 1,000 children are sick every day from diseases caused by smoking. One half of Canadian children live in smoky homes. Only 20 per cent of Canadian homes with kids are kept smoke free.
In California, where they have had programs funded by this kind of levy for a decade, the situation has changed enormously. Where 20 per cent of Canadian homes are smoke free, 85 per cent of Californian homes are smoke free and 80 per cent of the children there live in smoke-free homes.
Let us deal with kids for a second. The thing about smoking is that, although it usually kills you when you are an adult, nicotine addiction is a disease that only children catch. You will not have seen this graph before, although it is based on Health Canada statistics, because they did not publish it in their report. It shows that almost 30 per cent of 13 and 14-year-old girls -- still children in my view -- are smoking. What Health Canada did not reveal was the 14 per cent who are beginner smokers. These are children who have smoked in the last month but have not smoked 100 cigarettes.
The statistics for 18 and 19-year-old girls show that only 30 per cent of them smoke, however, those girls have moved up the line from being beginner smokers to kids who smoke every other day, to every day. They are snared by the marketing of cigarette companies when they are 13, but they are fully hooked by the time they are 19.
When the tobacco industry claims that the statistics do not show an increase in new smoking, I refer you to this graph, which came from RJR-Macdonald Inc. It was a leaked document, which I will table with the clerk. It does not look at children smoking, it looks at young adults smoking, the 19 to 24-year-olds. In 1996, it shows that the kids in the previous survey, the older ones at age 17, two years later were smoking at phenomenally increased rates.
Why are kids smoking more and more? Part of the story came out in American court documents; the fact is that today's cigarettes are more addictive. Today's cigarette is made from tobacco that is selected to have proportionately more nicotine in it, to have the right kind of nicotine, and to deliver the right kind of free nicotine, through the addition of ammonia and other ingredients, which maximizes its addictive potential.
We have the American court documents that talk about adding ammonia. Those documents prompted me to use the access to information provisions to find out what Health Canada's chemical analysis showed.
This document showed that the tobacco industry clearly controlled the amount of nicotine in cigarettes. However, this study, which is more interesting, says that the nicotine levels in cigarettes are directly related to ammonia levels. The scientist says that the most striking feature of his analysis is what appears to be a strong, linear relationship between mainstream ammonia and nicotine contents. The higher the ammonia content, the higher the nicotine content. The higher the free nicotine content, the more addictive the cigarettes.
Cigarette manufacturers may deny that they add the ammonia, but the fact is that they purchase it from processing plants that are legally independent, which manufacture the tobacco, process it and make it ready to put into the cigarettes.
The bottom line on smoking is essentially the bottom line everywhere else, and it is the bottom line that faces you today. The federal government gets about $10 from a carton of cigarettes, which is not bad; of that, they currently spend about 10 cents on smoking. You are being asked to increase this by 50 cents, which is a marginal impact. That 60 cents can go to a good purpose.
If anyone comes to you and says, "What about smuggling?" I will refer you to the next chart. This is what would happen if the tobacco industry had to swallow all of the 50 cents into their profits. These are the tobacco industry profits for the two companies that are reported. RJR is wholly owned by an American company, and its profits are not separately reported to the public. You can see that the profits are soaring. The company at the top is Imperial Tobacco -- $175 million this year and roughly $1 billion in profit to the industry.
The next slide will show you what would happen to what profit margin if the tobacco industry had to swallow it. They will still make a fistful of money. This will not affect things too much. This money is peanuts to the tobacco industry, but it is also peanuts to the national accounts.
The next slides show the current revenues from tobacco. You will notice that they have gone down significantly since taxes were slashed in 1994. The next slide shows how much the increase in this levy will affect the financial situation. It is not a very significant change. In other words, the bean-counters and the stockholders will not be affected; the people who will be affected are the kids who will benefit from better health education programs, less tobacco promotion and better research.
Two weeks ago, I was asked by a provincial government to take a delegation on a fact-finding mission to California. Do not let anyone tell you today that the California model, which is very similar to Bill S-13, does not work. I spent a couple of days speaking to people about how it worked, and it works wonderfully well. It has reduced overall adult smoking to 20 per cent. It has held the line on youth smoking, when no other jurisdiction has. It has changed public attitudes about smoking. It has resulted in kids being protected from smoking in their homes, and it has resulted in almost universal protection from smoking for workers.
Canadians do not have a direct ballot initiative that would allow us to bring in a Proposition 99-style of funding. We do, however, have the Senate, and we are counting on you.
Mr. Gar Mahood, Executive Director, Non-Smokers' Rights Association: Mr. Chairman, honourable senators, thank you for the opportunity to appear and comment on Bill S-13. This is a very important health initiative. Before commenting, I wish to provide some background about our association's longstanding interest in tobacco policy in Canada.
I run a national non-profit health organization that works internationally on tobacco control. Our organization played a major role in the campaign leading up to the passage of the Tobacco Products Control Act and the Tobacco Act. Our research, done through our related foundation, the Smoking and Health Action Foundation, played a major role in bringing tobacco taxes in Canada to world levels leading up to 1991. Tobacco taxation was the major factor that led to world-precedent-setting declines in consumption in Canada in the decade leading to 1991.
You may not be aware of it, but Canadian cigarette package warnings were designed in our office, and I think we played a major role in getting the government to enact them. This is important because these warnings have been picked up and copied by other countries.
Members of our staff have served as consultants to the World Health Organization, the World Bank, the Pan-American Health Organization, and I personally served as a consult for a period of time to the Massachusetts Health Education Campaign, to which there will be references here today.
I want to personally commend Senator Kenny for his leadership. This bill is one of the most intelligent public health initiatives this country has ever seen. No Canadian legislator, I think, has worked with greater commitment to reduce tobacco consumption than Senator Kenny.
I have been asked to comment about some of the international initiatives in tobacco control.
To begin, the World Health Organization estimates that tobacco will kill 500 million people presently alive. Health Canada estimates that 3 million of these deaths will occur in this country, premature deaths among Canadians. These deaths will occur because health agencies, governments and media have not pursued tobacco manufacturers aggressively in the past. The failures of health interests and legislators to confront tobacco companies in the 1960s and the 1970s are the cause of the tobacco deaths we are now experiencing.
There are signs that change is under way. Today, the European Community will decide on the proposed tobacco advertising ban and the tobacco sponsorship advertising ban. France, Belgium and other countries have already enacted such a ban.
In the United States, where the major change is taking place, Congress, the media and public opinion have turned on the tobacco manufacturers. The sea change started with thousands of pages of tobacco industry documents being leaked to Congress. These documents, combined with tens of thousands of additional industry documents obtained in the discovery process, reveal a massive, decades-long conspiracy by the industry to hide the risks related to tobacco use. U.S. tobacco executives have now been called to testify under oath before Congress. To date, no Canadian legislative body has cared enough about kids to force Canadian tobacco executives to testify under oath.
What has the new information in the United States produced? There is now a U.S. federal justice department criminal investigation of the tobacco industry for perjury and fraud. At least five grand juries are investigating the industry for criminal behaviour. I think a couple have reported. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has given its historic ruling that the cigarette is a drug delivery system, and from now on, tobacco will be approached as if it were a drug.
Forty-one states have sued the industry for recovery of Medicaid costs. This litigation is based on charges of perjury, fraud, conspiracy and racketeering, to name a few. Four states have settled for billions of dollars. The Minnesota settlement last week was close to $10 billion Canadian. An equivalent settlement for a province the size of Ontario would be for over $1 billion Canadian, each year, for 25 years to come from Canadian manufacturers.
Canadian companies have repeatedly denied involvement in this kind of behaviour, just as their American sister corporations issued similar denials earlier. It is time, in our opinion, to blow the whistle. When compared to the United States, Canada is falling very far behind.
We have not always been playing catch-up on tobacco control in this country.
Prior to the tobacco tax roll-backs, Canada was experiencing world-precedent-setting declines in consumption. Our past leadership on tax policy and legislation has influenced many countries. The Canadian warning system is already on packages in several countries.
One factor, above all others, has been driving the social change on tobacco in the United States -- that is, truth; truth about tobacco industry behaviour, including the suppression of information about health risks, the manipulation of nicotine levels, and the predatory marketing directed at kids.
There is strong evidence that virtually all the behaviour that is driving the change in the U.S. has been practised by Canadian tobacco companies. Yet, the behaviour of Canadian tobacco companies has never been really examined. That is why about a month ago over 30 major Canadian national organizations called for a royal commission into the industry.
What are the solutions? Health organizations know the recommended comprehensive tobacco control plan needed to turn this situation around. The problem is that, to date, no government has cared enough about its kids to implement the plan. We must change the environment in which kids make decisions to smoke and change the environment in which governments make decisions about tobacco policy, in order to deal with the epidemic.
At the present time, kids see conflicting messages everywhere that undermine the health warnings that are sent by parents, teachers and health educators. Kids are told that tobacco is addictive, then they see tobacco being sold next to the candy in every corner store. Kids are told that tobacco is lethal, then they see it being sold in beautiful packages by health professionals in pharmacies in many parts of Canada. Kids are told that governments do not want them to smoke, then they are confronted with role models and rock musicians selling tobacco through sponsorships on billboards and buses across the country.
Research shows that kids identify these ads as tobacco advertisements first. Only secondarily, when questioned, will the kids identify them as event advertisements. It is curious that kids apparently get it while adults do not.
One part of the solution is to end tobacco sponsorships and tobacco sponsorship advertising. Bill S-13 is an intelligent response to that problem.
First, Bill S-13 calls the manufacturers on one of their massive deceptions; that is, that they are not interested in the child and adolescent market.
Bill S-13 creates a fund to help tobacco-sponsored groups make a transition to tobacco-free sponsorships. This is necessary and politically intelligent. Virtually all national health interests favour the creation of such a fund, simply because it takes the political volatility out of the system. Of course, as long as that sponsorship problem exists, it creates a block to other health policy.
Bill S-13 would establish a health fund that would have a real chance of reducing tobacco consumption. You will be hearing more about the precedent-setting and award-winning campaigns in Massachusetts and California. Senator Kenny has already mentioned that Massachusetts spends $8 per capita each year on its program. California spends $4 per capita. Last year, Health Canada spent 33 cents per capita on its tobacco control initiative.
I spoke earlier about the necessity of removing the double messages that we send to kids with respect to the tobacco industry and tobacco products. A critical part of that exercise is what is called tobacco industry denormalization. This is the process of separating tobacco industry products from legitimate products in the marketplace. Denormalization also means the separation of the tobacco industry from legitimate business.
Industry denormalization campaigns are now being run in U.S. states on radio, television and in the print media. They tell the kids the truth about industry deceit, about the industry's predatory marketing, and about the disinformation that the industry has created about tobacco risks.
Industry denormalization is critical because it encourages kids to rebel against the tobacco industry rather than against parents and teachers. The officials and advertising executives in California and Massachusetts with whom I have met say this is the most important component of that campaign.
Equally important, telling the truth about the tobacco industry creates a political climate in which the necessary law reform can come forward.
I have brought with me about two minutes of these commercials and I will show them to you, if members are interested, at the conclusion of my talk.
The Chairman: When will the conclusion of your talk be, Mr. Mahood? Senator Kenny, I and others worked as cooperatively as we could on the scheduling problems here. There are four witnesses on this panel, and you have an hour for your presentations and questions. We still have to hear from Dr. Stewart. There are a dozen senators in this room who are not here as props. These committees work best when there is an opportunity for questions, answers and dialogue among senators and witnesses. I do not wish to pick on you necessarily, Mr. Mahood, but as a caution to others who will follow, we must respect the scheduling. I have undertaken, without fail, to have this committee out of this room at 11:30 a.m., which is exactly 20 minutes from now. If you want to move to two minutes of an audio-visual presentation, we will move to it. We will then hear from Dr. Stewart, which will probably leave us a very few minutes for questions.
Mr. Mahood: Senator, I would have been finished in that time.
The Chairman: Well, please do.
Mr. Mahood: I carefully timed my talk to be just a little over about 10 minutes and 30 seconds.
I will conclude by saying that Bill S-13, which is an excellent bill, combined with a royal commission and strong regulations under the Tobacco Act would, in our opinion, have a very real possibility of reducing youth smoking in this country. We commend the Senate for bringing Bill S-13 this far and we encourage its passage.
(Video presentation)
Dr. Ron Stewart, President, Council for Tobacco Control: Thank you for your invitation to present today. To introduce myself a little more fully, I am a primarily a physician, but have, in my past incarnations, been both a legislator and a minister, and I am now a volunteer with a national organization.
[Translation]
I am here today in my capacity of Chairman of the Council for Tobacco Control, formerly the Canadian Council on Smoking and Health, to share with you my views on the issue at hand.
The organization I represent has been involved in the fight against smoking for a quarter of a century. From cessation to prevention and protection issues, the Council has been during this time at the forefront of every major tobacco control campaign in Canada and continues to play an important role in Canada's fight against the leading cause of preventable death and disease in the country.
[English]
This council furthers its efforts through effective collaboration with Canada's leading health organizations and experts within the tobacco control field, as well as through adjunct councils in every province and territory in Canada. The council also manages what I believe is the jewel in our crown, the National Clearing House on Tobacco and Health, which is Canada's leading resource centre. That organization has an international reputation.
You have heard from my colleagues about the valiant efforts of Senator Kenny and Senator Nolin which have brought us together today. The Council for Tobacco Control wishes to state unequivocally our support for Bill S-13.
[Translation]
Once again, the Council wishes to express its unconditional support for Bill S-13. Its support is even stronger given that the bill calls upon the industry to contribute to the attainment of one of its own objectives. How often have tobacco industry representatives stated that like everybody else, they have no desire to see children and teenagers smoke?
Of course, we do not believe that the tobacco industry is being entirely truthful when it says this because it needs to replace those smokers who are dying as the result using their products as well as those who have kicked the habit.
The proposed legislation therefore gives the industry an opportunity to prove, by putting its money where its mouth is, that it really wants to prevent Canadian children from becoming addicted to tobacco.
[English]
Our understanding is that Bill S-13 would provide for a foundation maintained through a levy imposed on tobacco manufacturers. You have heard from my colleagues some of the consequences of providing adequate funding. This is what I wish to leave with you today. We welcome Bill S-13 on the basis that it places the burden of responsibility upon those who systematically and blatantly fuel this very public, global and longstanding health crisis. That such a public health crisis should depend on public health funding we believe to be reasonable and responsible, but the industry, which produces the crisis in large measure through its products, must be held accountable. We join with previous speakers in calling for a public inquiry to investigate the industry.
I wish to leave you with a very clear example of inadequate funding making it impossible for those of us who believe so fervently in this cause and its solution to move forward. It was my painful duty this week to announce the closure of the National Clearing House on Tobacco and Health due to lack of funding.
As far as we can tell, there is approximately $120 million in promotional activities and $60 million in direct sponsorships by the tobacco industry in Canada today. As my colleague Ms Callard has said, you can compare the $10 bill with the dime. That says it all.
To quote someone very famous: Give us the tools and we will do the job. We do not have the necessary tools at our disposal. We plead with you to give us those tools through Bill S-13 and we will do the job.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: Mr. Gauvin, you mentioned that 600 Quebec organizations are members of your coalition. Are any of these groups primarily devoted to reducing tobacco use young Quebeckers?
Mr. Gauvin: You will find a list of our members in appendix 1. We do indeed have some groups associated with the Quebec council on Smoking and Health that are particularly interested in the youth smoking issue and that have received funding from Health Canada to undertake initiatives targeting young Quebeckers, in particular high school students. This is the population group for which the highest levels of smoking in years have been recorded. Despite the efforts of the Quebec council on smoking and young persons, educational programs have not proved adequate enough thus far in preventing an increase in youth smoking.
Senator Nolin: This is the main reason why the number of young smokers in Quebec continues to increase. We are talking about 38 per cent of the Quebec population age 18 and under who now smoke. The figures are even higher among the female population.
Mr. Gauvin: Cigarette prices are quite low despite recent, modest tax hikes. These overheads show how smoking can be depicted as glamorous and seductive and how the tobacco industry manages to make itself attractive and seductive to young persons. Young girls identify with fashion and equate smoking with staying thin. Youths associate tobacco with courage, adventure or extreme sports. The modest funding available to us does not begin to compare with the substantial sums of money available to the tobacco industry and to its highly seductive marketing techniques.
[English]
Senator Butts: I wish to address a question to Mr. Mahood.
If, as you state, prior to the tobacco tax rollbacks there were precedent-setting declines, and as a result of the tax rollbacks there was an unprecedented smuggling of cigarettes, how reliable are your figures?
Mr. Mahood: They are not just my figures. They are figures produced by the national health community.
Certainly we had world-precedent-setting declines and certainly there was a lot of smuggling going on at the time. However, I do not think there is any doubt about the performance of the Canadian governments when they raised tobacco taxes in that decade leading up to the tobacco tax rollbacks.
I am unaware of anyone seriously disputing the performance. As a matter of fact, the British magazine The Economist published a graph showing the extraordinary decline in Canada, and that was published prior to the tobacco tax rollbacks.
[Translation]
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Mr. Gauvin, the Quebec government is scheduled to table its anti-smoking legislation, hopefully before May 15 if it wishes to pass the legislation before the end of the session. Do you have any idea of what the bill's provisions will be?
Mr. Gauvin: I only know what I have read in the newspapers. Last weekend, Quebec City's Le Soleil reported that apparently, a fund is to be established in the province. The bill would also ban tobacco sponsorship. Senator Kenny's proposals would apply to all of Canada and they would certainly complement any initiatives taken by the Quebec government.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Rumour has it that the bill takes a much harder line when it comes to tobacco use by young people than did the federal legislation adopted last spring.
Mr. Gauvin: As far as the sale of cigarettes to minors is concerned, the two bills appear to be similar. In Quebec, seven federal inspectors are responsible for going around to corner stores that sell cigarettes and this is not enough. As soon as the inspectors leave, cigarettes sales resume. Of the six Canadian cities that sell the most cigarettes to youths, four are in Quebec. It is absolutely essential that Quebec try and get a handle on this problem.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: From an educational standpoint, we need to do more than what the federal legislation proposed.
Mr. Gauvin: Indeed, we need to invest considerably more in prevention and education programs.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Thank you. You have confirmed what we already knew, but far more eloquently.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you, senators and witnesses, for an interesting, stimulating and creative opening to our hearings on this important bill.
The committee adjourned.