---

Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources

Issue 7 - Evidence, May 3, 2001 (afternoon meeting)

---

MONTREAL, Thursday, May 3, 2001

The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, to which was referred Bill S-15, to enable and assist the Canadian tobacco industry in attaining its objective of preventing the use of tobacco products by young persons in Canada, met this day at 1:32 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.

Senator Nicholas W. Taylor (Chairman) in the Chair.

[English]

The Chairman: Honourable senators, we now move to our study of Bill S-15, the tobacco bill.

Please proceed, Mr. Gauvin.

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Gauvin, Coordinator of the Quebec Coalition on Tobacco: Mr. François Damphousse and myself are here today in support of Bill S-15 on tobacco. Other speakers will follow us this afternoon. They will tell you about the situation on smoking in Quebec, specifically among young people, and they will also tell you what could be done in a very concrete way with the funds raised under this legislation to prevent smoking among young people.

I am the coordinator for the Quebec Coalition. The Coalition was created in 1996. We represent 750 organizations and institutions from throughout Quebec and from all sectors of society: health, municipalities, schools, school boards, youth groups, environmental groups and community groups.

Mr. François Damphousse, Director of the Quebec Office of the Association of Non-Smokers' Rights: You are familiar with our organization thanks to Mr. Garfield Mahood and Mr. David Sweiner. We have been working in this area for over 25 years.

The latest office of our association was established here in Montreal, primarily as a result of the tax war of 1994, and we have been working here since then. I would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to appear before you today.

First of all I would like to thank you for your perseverance in this area. Your efforts have greatly contributed to raise public awareness about the serious problem of under-funding in the fight against smoking.

We are also convinced that it is thanks to you that the federal government implemented its $480 million anti-smoking program over the next five years.

However, this initiative does not meet the three conditions set forth by the health community when we launched our campaign to increase funding for the fight against smoking. Those conditions can be found in Bill S-15. And that is why we feel that the health community should be in support of the bill.

The first condition is adequate funding. The bill would have an investment of $360 million, or $12 per person, which is in line with the recommendations of the CDC, a document which I'm sure you must know by heart by now given how long you've been working on this issue. If we want to have efficient campaigns in our fight against smoking, we must have the sums of money at our disposal.

It is important to note that the tobacco industry for decades injected hundreds of millions of dollars into its marketing campaigns in order to convince the public that their products are ordinary and comparable to any other consumer product.

We should therefore have comparable sums at our disposal if we want to launch efficient anti-smoking campaigns, as was done in Massachusetts, Florida and California in order to counter decades of marketing by the industry.

The second condition is sustainable funding, and that is what Bill S-15 promises to provide. How often are we going to have to repeat ourselves? We need a broad campaign that is sustainable and of high caliber.

The campaigns carried out in the United States work because they have stable funding. Here it is the opposite, since currently our campaigns are too sporadic. On several occasions, the government had to limit the length of these campaigns due to a lack of funds. Under these conditions, how can you expect to convince the public of the importance of overseeing the tobacco industry?

The third condition which we hold dear is the implementation of an independent foundation as set forth in the bill in order to manage the campaign. We feel that that is an intelligent way to protect the funds and the messages of any campaign against any involvement or interference from the government and the tobacco industry.

Every time the government grants money for a particular program, there is always a risk that these investments will be cut back along the way. That is what happened in 1994, to Louis and myself when we went through the tax war. The federal government proposed $120 million for the fight against smoking within a national stop smoking strategy. The program was cut back so often that all that was left was $20 million for the fight against smoking, which is clearly not enough.

Thus, in order to be efficient, the messages of the campaign will be probably very strong and will not please everyone, that is why we have to be protected from any outside pressure which could influence the efficiency of the campaign.

We also fear that the tobacco industry will do everything in its power to weaken the campaign. If the campaign does show positive results, rest assured that the industry will want to weaken it. We saw this happening in California and in Florida: tobacco companies applied enormous pressure to the governors of the States in order to see funding withdrawn for anti-smoking programs.

Furthermore, we now have evidence which demonstrates that the tobacco industry has infiltrated or somehow used research funds for other purposes. That is of great concern, and we must have an independent foundation in order to avoid those situations.

As regards the industry, my colleague Louis Gauvin also wanted to make a few comments.

Mr. Gauvin: It's actually an aside that we would like to make regarding the support given to Bill S-15 by the Canadian tobacco industry.

Several weeks ago, you will remember the type of advertising we found in the major daily newspapers in Canada in both official languages. To put it simply, there position is perplexing and is of great concern to us.

And beyond their public position, you are no doubt aware that the Canadian industry is mobilizing its tobacco sellers, the corner stores, throughout Canada by asking them to write letters of support. These are standard letters of support which the owners of these stores simply have to sign and return in their riding. Some members of Parliament told us that they had received up to 80 of these letters in their riding. This movement is of concern, and it raises a certain number of questions that I would like to briefly bring to your attention.

First of all, how is it that an industry which we consider to be immoral, and to be directly and with full knowledge responsible for unprecedented human carnage, dominated by lies, greed and exploitation, all of a sudden becomes an ardent supporter of a measure, of a bill which would damage its bottom line?

Are we to believe that it has found religion and that the tobacco industry is publicly alarmed at the high rate of smoking amongst young people, whereas it has never stopped trying to manipulate young people so that they start smoking?

How can we give any credibility at all to the industry, when it has always considered young people as a very useful reservoir to be drawn upon without remorse, to replace those people who stop smoking or who die from smoking-related illnesses?

In our opinion, the support of the manufacturers could serve their own interests in several ways. We feel, for example, that their support is part of a public relations campaign with a view to changing their image, which has suffered considerably over the past years, and for whom the worst is yet to come perhaps.

But most of all as far as we are concerned, there is no doubt that manufacturers are trying or may try to carve out a place for themselves amongst the decision-makers who are working or will be working to implement strategies and campaigns developed by the foundation created under Bill S-15.

One of the main objectives that the health groups would like to achieve through this bill is a strong public denunciation of the industry and its manipulative tactics.

That is why we see the support for what it truly is: yet another way for the tobacco industry to protect itself against any efficient measures to reduce smoking. That is what I would have to say.

Mr. Damphousse: I would like to move to another point. I think that the health community did not sufficiently underline the issue of the profitability of investments made to fight tobacco use.

We know that investments in the fight against smoking are very profitable to society. For example, last January, the Clair Commission submitted a report on health services and social services in Quebec. The first recommendation of this report stated that more must be invested in prevention in order to reduce health costs.

Furthermore in the report, it is indicated that tobacco is responsible for, and I quote: "a large share of the increased disability numbers which Quebec has seen over the past decade."

We also now have evidence, which continues to rise, on the advisability of investing in the fight against tobacco. For example, I have here a study of the various programs which exist in the United States and this study concludes that the most important factor in determining the success of a program is the level of investment.

We also have evidence that not only do these programs contribute to a decrease in smoking, they also contribute to reducing the rates of cardiovascular diseases or of lung cancer. You will have a copy of all of these studies in the annexes to the document which we submitted.

Such a decrease in the level of illnesses does lead in its turn to savings for the government. For example, the State of Massachusetts invested $40 million per year in its program against smoking. A preliminary report demonstrated that since this program was implemented, they have saved $85 million annually.

Another report on the level of investment in American States demonstrates that in California, since funds have been injected in the fight against smoking, for each dollar invested there is a four-dollar saving in health care which is quite a large sum.

Furthermore, the benefits of the fight against smoking can be seen quite quickly. For example, if we reduce the rate of smoking, the rate of cardiovascular diseases also decreases rapidly. Researchers have studied the issue as to what would happen if we reduced the smoking rate by 1 per cent over the next seven years and they concluded that the American government could save $3.2 billion.

We feel therefore that the initiative that you are presenting is a profitable investment which everyone should support.

Mr. Gauvin: Recognized economists, such as Pierre-Yves Crémieux and Pierre Ouellette, professors in the economics department of the Université du Québec à Montréal, took those numbers and transposed them as they would apply to Quebec.

The study carried out in Quebec demonstrates, along the same lines, that a progressive decrease in the number of people smoking following the implementation of an appropriately funded efficient program would lead to substantial savings in health costs for the government. You will find the study at tab 8. Not only are these substantial savings, but these are savings which pay for the costs incurred by the program. They cover costs that go beyond program costs.

One of the theories of these economists is that per capita investment close to what would be provided under Bill S-15 would be at around $12 per person. The scenario that the economists work with mentions $10.50. We are therefore in the same ballpark, with a decrease of 1.5 per cent per year in the number of people smoking. The benefits would be somewhere between 35 to $820 million over a ten-year period. Whatever the numbers, there are true savings to be had.

It is not necessarily up to government to create savings in the health sector, but rather to invest to ensure that the population is as healthy as possible. But if beyond that, the investment leads to real savings for the government, which economists can put numbers to, I think that then it is even more worthwhile to examine it at length.

In conclusion, we would hope that Bill S-15, which is in its third version, would finally be tabled and adopted by the House of Commons. It is the third version of a project, because we are convinced that only a critical mass of resources along the lines of those proposed here used for complete and efficient programs will significantly reduce smoking in Canada.

[English]

Senator Banks: In response to your comments, the conditions which you outline, Mr. Damphousse, are all met in Bill S-15.

Mr. Gauvin: That is why I raised them.

Senator Banks: Obviously, the proponents of this bill agree with you. In response to your concern, Mr. Gauvin, when we first met with the tobacco companies in respect to this bill, they asked for a hand, a say, in how these monies would be spent and in the programs. They were told that they would not have any such say.

Bill S-15 contemplates a genuine arm's-length independence in which neither the government nor the tobacco companies have any say in devising the programs contemplated in the bill.

We have heard from other people across the country, from Vancouver to St. John's, that the health community has concerns - and I subscribe to this idea - that what the government is about to do with respect to tobacco cessation or control, if you want to use that generic term, will be embodied in either Bill S-15 or the bill and motions that were proposed by the health minister on April 5, which talk about $98 million over the next four years. They believe that the likelihood of both those things happening is zero. Others in the health community have expressed to us a danger about the proposal of April 5 coming into force with a program that prescribes one quarter of the prescription necessary to solve the sickness. Some people say they know it will not work because other programs that have been put into place in other jurisdictions with that level of funding do not work. The critical mass of funding to which you referred is essential.

The danger seen by others is if the proposal of April 5 is put into place and fails, which seems in some people's view to be inexorably the result, that will bring discredit to the idea that anything can be done about the problem of youth smoking in particular. Could you comment on the government's options, please?

[Translation]

Mr. Gauvin: What Bill S-15 proposes is an ideal model in terms of funding. It provides the required arm's length from the tobacco industry. I am willing to take you at your word, and it is something that I would hope to see from the government of Canada.

And that applies to all of the activities which could engender anti-smoking funding in Canada, whether it is for awareness campaigns or for the enforcement of legislation - if I understood Senator Kenny correctly - as well as research, evaluation, et cetera.

For the time being the federal government would spread out these monies over a five-year period. What would happen with this money in five years if it were available?

In 1994, the government launched a $180 million program, which was unprecedented, in order to soften the decisions made regarding the tax decreases. Eighteen months later, the funds were re-directed for budgetary priorities and to fight the deficit. The budgets were cut back. The same thing happened in Quebec, to a lesser degree, but for the same reasons.

We feel that it is important for the government to adopt measures which would permanently ensure efficient results in the fight against smoking. I would be truly saddened if the government would have to make a choice between two amounts, for example, between $96 million and $360 million per year.

As far as we are concerned, we feel that the principles advanced in Bill S-15, as they apply to the amounts and to how things would run, offer the best guarantees in the long term and in the short term.

[English]

Senator Banks: Yes, but I have another question.

Many parliamentarians are looking at the present situation and saying, well, it has been taken care of because the health minister has put a program into place. It is not as much as we would like, but then we cannot give the farmers or the fishermen or the woodworkers as much as we would like. However, the situation has been taken care of to the extent that the government is capable of doing. What would you say to those parliamentarians?

Mr. Damphousse: For the past three or four years, the federal government has made a valiant effort to bring the money forward, but that commitment does not yet meet the standards that the health community agreed upon. Those standards are met under Bill S-15. If we are given a choice, we will take the better choice.

One other important point is that being independent will give us a great advantage in the type of campaigns or work we can do. When the campaigns or the messages come from inside government, they might not be as strong. People might say that the message does not to go as far as is necessary. With Bill S-15, we can rest assured that is the type of thing we need to do, and that is why we support the bill.

[Translation]

Mr. Gauvin: We feel that the Canadian tobacco industry spends approximately $200 million per year in order to promote the sale of its products, so that $96 million from the government would be good. It would be unprecedented and we have publicly recognized this. But that still does not allow us to fight an equal battle against the tobacco industry, which would be achievable under Bill S-15.

As to the choices that the government must make, for example, between the demands of fishers and the demands of all kinds of other groups in society, the funding, in this case, does not come from taxes, but from a direct levy on the industry's revenues. So it is not taking anything away from anybody else as far as we can see.

[English]

The Chairman: Before we go to Senator Maheu, I would like to introduce someone who has worked long and hard for the anti-tobacco organization in question. She is co-chair of the Coalition québécoise pour le contrôle du tabac. Heidi Rathjen, would you stand, please.

[Translation]

Senator Maheu: Mr. Gauvin, you mentioned a little earlier, that tobacco companies seemed to use manipulative tactics and that they want to carve out a place for themselves as part of a public relations campaign. That is such a negative statement that I am trying to see how I can reconcile your position with what we have heard. The government's program offers $480 million over a five-year period, as opposed to $360 million. As Senator Banks as indicated, there is never enough money to go around.

If all this money is to come from tobacco companies, I am trying to reconcile your negative position towards them. They are willing to support Senator Kenny's bill. Contrary to the position that you are taking, they are strongly in support of this bill. How can we reconcile your position with the reaction of the tobacco companies?

Mr. Gauvin: We strongly support Bill S-15.

Senator Maheu: The tobacco companies do as well.

Mr. Gauvin: We support it without reservation and without a hidden agenda, as we supported Bill S-13, as well as Bill S-20. We have already appeared before you on this topic, and we have stated our position publicly.

As to the industry support, we are raising concerns and we are certainly not the only ones to have raised these concerns. We have seen these types of statements in the past. We are aware, especially since documents from their legal counsellors officers are now public, that between what they say publicly and what they really know or what they really do there is a wide margin.

So we ask the question: Is it possible that in this case we are dealing with the same thing? Senator Banks' response earlier was to say and I quote: "There will be no influence, not from the government nor from the tobacco industry over the foundation which will be created." And I said: "Senator Banks, I am willing to take you at your word."

Mr. Damphousse: The reason why the tobacco industry supports the bill is because you are compelling it to do so.

It is because you subpoenaed the industry to appear before the Senate Committee. What I remember best from them evidence, is Mr. Bexon indicating: "We were behind closed doors for a week with our lawyers in order to decide what position we should take before the Senate Committee." They wanted to avoid the type of catastrophe which occurred in the United States, where we heard the executives of tobacco companies testify under oath and say: "We do not feel that nicotine leads to addiction."

They wanted to avoid that type of situation. In my opinion, they were therefore forced to support the bill. They are now promoting the bill in order to avoid, once the bill is implemented, the foundation using campaigns such as those we have seen in the United States.

In the United States, the most efficient campaigns are the ones which attack the tobacco industry. They attack tobacco products. I believe that the tobacco industry is trying to create good media perception in order to avoid this type of campaign. Later on, if that is the type of campaign that is launched, the industry will say: "Look we were nice and we supported the bill."

So there is a motive behind what the industry is doing: public relations. Since I have been working on this issue, as we are all aware, the industry manages its business in its own best interests. The same thing is happening here.

Currently, in the United States tobacco companies such as Philip Morris are investing millions in public relations campaign to garner favourable press saying that they are investing in order to help out charitable organizations.

This type of campaign is starting to be criticized, because it serves only to give them good media coverage and to maintain good public relations with citizens and elected officials.

[English]

Senator Banks: The tobacco companies are spending millions, certainly hundreds of thousands, urging people to support this bill. Maybe we should take a page from Mr. Churchill, who was an implacable foe of Communist Russia, but who proclaimed them as our allies as soon as they went to war against Nazi Germany. When he was asked to reconcile that, he said, "If the devil joined the fight against Nazi Germany, I would at least make a favourable reference to him in my speech or comments."

Mr. Damphousse: That is what I would expect to see from the tobacco industry if, in fact, the bill shows that it will be an effective campaign and we see tobacco consumption drop dramatically in Canada. The tobacco industry will be knocking on your doors, every door you have. It will be saying that something is wrong, and it will try to convince you to get rid of the money or get rid of the messages brought forward by the campaign. I guarantee that.

[Translation]

Senator Maheu: Therefore you have no belief that the tobacco companies are sincere and you are basically trying to demolish their publicity campaign in support of Bill S-15?

Mr. Damphousse: The reasons why I raise this are to warn you against what could happen if a publicity campaign did reduce the number of people who are smoking.

You will see that that is the type of reaction that they will get. They are grabbing the headlines with their publicity campaign. You have received masses of letters from corner stores. It is a very well organized publicity campaign.

Furthermore, I believe that one of the reasons they are doing this is linked to the question Senator Kenny asked of them last summer. When they said that they would support the bill, they were asked: "And what exactly are you willing to do in support of the bill"?

The initial response from Mr. Bexon was I do not know and I found that hilarious. These are people who for years have wanted to eliminate bills trying to control their products. Do you not find their reaction surprising? I do. Now you have put them in a position where they were left with no choice.

I am however convinced that they are already planning a public relation strategy to ensure that the bill prove to be as ineffective as possible.

Senator Nolin: I agree with the concerns that were raised. Without losing sight of these concerns, if we manage to pass Bill S-15 and begin setting up the foundation, we will already have made a big step.

After that, when they come knowing at our door, then we will see. However, I understand your concerns. I am trying to be as practical as possible.

Mr. Gauvin, you referred to your experience in the battle against contraband. The government of Canada has just announced a tax increase: I think that they are now talking about $4 per carton. The bill proposes an increase of $1.50 per carton. Should we not be concerned that the smuggling will resume? When we discussed the levy, we asked ourselves if $1.50 would provoke another war against contraband? We decided no. However now, with the four extra dollars, we are pushing it, and I would like to hear your comments on this.

Mr. Gauvin: You will remember that from 1992 to 1994, a carton of cigarettes sold for approximately $50, whereas in the U.S., it was approximately half of that price.

Today, it is virtually the opposite. In Quebec and in Ontario, the price hovers around $40, $37, $38, and this is since the tax increase. In the United States, in certain states such as Vermont and New York, as well as all of the bordering states, the price is approximately $60. I am referring to Quebec and to Ontario. The prices are much greater due to two factors.

There have been tax increases in these states since 1994, but more importantly, there was the $206 billion agreement between the 41 or 44 American states and the tobacco companies, which had the effect of immediately increasing the price of a package of cigarettes. Thus, this creates a very big difference.

Another element is that we now know that there is a Canadian company and subsidiaries in the United States which are currently being prosecuted in U.S. courts for what is known as bribery, conspiracy and organizing contraband for their own gain.

Which means, contrary to the information that the media was giving us at that time, it was not a question of small-time criminals who were smuggling a few cartons of cigarettes, this was organized - these are the allegations, there have been no convictions - this was organized within the highest levels of this company. We are talking about the level of the president. Therefore, the company is being prosecuted for this.

It is our impression, without being specialists in contraband, that because of these two elements, the industry will stay quiet. We will certainly not reach the levels of 1992, 1993 and 1994. The federal government and the government of Quebec have also announced additional funds for officers responsible for monitoring contraband activity. Therefore, it would be much more difficult.

Mr. Damphousse: We have fought hard to convince governments to introduce measures to control the problem, since learning that the source of the smuggling was from within the industry itself. Now, there is the export tax. The wax this export tax is structured is very interesting: 1.5 per cent of the domestic market is taxed at $11, but after that, it is $22 per carton.

The story which appeared in the Journal de Montréal this week regarding the resumption of smuggling on the Kahnawake Indian reserve is, in my opinion, a result of the announced export tax. They purchased a significant quantity before the tax was implemented. They purchased these products duty free from the United States. However, at some point, they will run out of these products and they will be forced to increase their prices because they will have to pay more for their product.

The contraband market could be maintained if the tobacco companies move part of their production to the United States in order to supply the contraband. Should this happen, we know very well what the purpose behind supplying the contraband would be, it would be to make money to the detriment of the government.

The federal government should also introduce another measure targeting companies whose products have been seized. These companies would have to follow the customer-rule principle, which requires that they know to whom they are shipping their products. They would have to verify where their products are being shipped, otherwise they would have to pay fines. These companies would think more seriously about protecting their market from any contraband.

[English]

Senator Kenny: The tobacco map prepared by NSRA is instructive. If we look at Quebec, we see a figure of $33. If we add the $4 excise tax that Mr. Martin just announced, that brings to total to $37. If we look at the contiguous states, New York is at 63, Vermont at 53, New Hampshire at 50 and Maine at 58. Smuggling is going to go north to south, not south to north.

Mr. Gauvin: Or east to west.

Senator Kenny: Until we have a harmonization of taxes from province to province. Smuggling should be a red herring.

Mr. Damphousse: The problem in the past was the duty-free sale of tobacco. One did not have to pay the prices in the United States.

Senator Kenny: That has been addressed to some extent.

Mr. Damphousse: That is the main thing that needed to be done, and I congratulated the government in doing so.

[Translation]

Senator Nolin: As I mentioned earlier, the problem is not with the Senate. The senators know the importance of this bill which is being tabled for a third time. What are you prepared to do in order to help us get this bill passed in the House of Commons?

Mr. Gauvin: The bill has never been tabled in the House of Commons; so this is a first. We are a coalition of 750 organizations from Quebec including health professionals, doctors and nurses who work for the most part in private clinics and in public health. We are prepared to mobilize our members to support your bill.

We plan on increasing our public statements and submissions to members. Incidentally, when the first version of the bill - known as S-13 - was released, we met with all of the Liberal MPs from Quebec on the Hill, as well as the MPs from the Bloc Québécois. Once again, we will systematically meet with all of the members and do everything that can be done in order to communicate this message to the members of the Canadian Parliament.

Senator Nolin: Before the members have the opportunity to examine the substance of the bill, there is a technicality, a technicality which incidentally blocked the bill on two occasions, or at least on one occasion.

Mr. Gauvin: The second time, it was the election.

Senator Nolin: The second time, the bells rang.

Mr. Gauvin: Yes, that's right.

Senator Nolin: The bells rang. The Speaker of the House has an important role, and his decision will not be based on the relevance of the measure. On the contrary, I believe that the Speaker agrees on the how and on the goals being pursued. It is the technicality which is worrisome, and we believe that with Bill S-15, like Bill S-20, we have corrected the shortcomings that were identified in Bill S-13. I tell you this purely for your information.

Mr. Gauvin: So there is a first step?

Senator Nolin: Now, it is up to your lawyers to work even harder than your public health researchers.

Mr. Gauvin: I thought that it had already been tabled to in fact assess whether Bill S-15 would stand up to the Speaker's analysis this time?

Senator Nolin: Since there are 8,000 or 9,000 lawyers, there are no doubt 8,000 or 9,000 opinions on this issue!

Mr. Gauvin: I see.

Senator Nolin: It is not the number.

Mr. Gauvin: Are you saying that it is better to have a higher number of legal opinions?

Senator Nolin: Eventually, it opens doors.

Mr. Gauvin: I see, I think I understand.

[English]

The Chairman: I would like to mention letters written to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister does not necessarily read them, but I think someone in his office weighs and measures the pile that comes in to his office. No stamp is necessary, and any letters should be sent in the next 30 days because whether the Senate bill or the House of Commons bill gets accepted, it is going to happen fast; therefore, pressure, pressure and more measure.

[Translation]

Senator Hervieux-Payette: I am pleased to be able to discuss a bill that I have considered important for a long time. When I was the president of a school board, I banned the use of tobacco by young secondary students on school board property, obviously. Therefore, even though it was not illegal, it was not allowed.

Mr. Gauvin: Which school board was it?

Senator Hervieux-Payette: The Le Gardeur School Board. If someone was caught selling individual cigarettes, on their first offence, they were suspended for three days. On their second offence, they were suspended for two weeks. And the third time, they were expelled. I can tell you that it was a very efficient method, and there was no need for a bill to solve the problem.

Nonetheless, age remains an important factor. From the fifth or sixth grade, until the end of high school, there is the whole issue of imitating, the issue of peer pressure. Analysis of youth being interviewed show that the whole issue of imitating others is extremely important.

Also, at the Le Gardeur School Board, the students live in a rural area because it is outside of Montreal. Therefore, the youth are with the school board from 8 in the morning until 4:00 in the afternoon, even 4:30 or 5:00. Therefore, there is a huge part of time, where with this type of policy in place, they cannot consume tobacco.

Of course, the federal government, and also the provincial government, can ensure that when it comes to educational institutions, there are no half-measures or relaxing of the rules. You are a lawyer, I hope that you are also pleading your case there.

Mr. Damphousse: You may be aware that there is now a law in Quebec which deals with the promotion of tobacco, the sale of tobacco to minors, as well as the use of tobacco. In schools where there are minors present, therefore in elementary schools, secondary schools, and daycare centres, not only are youth and adults prohibited from smoking within, but smoking rooms for adults are also banned. Therefore, there is a complete cigarette ban in these facilities.

Mr. Gauvin: I would like to congratulate you for your determination. If everyone were this determined, there would be no need to pass this bill. Many people have shied away from this subject because they are afraid of starting an internal war. They were therefore quite happy to learn that the bill had been passed since it controlled the problem.

Senator Hervieux-Payette: Other than those who are your allies, the Chair mentioned earlier that the Prime Minister's office was sensitive to this. Young people are big e-mail users. I can tell you that it would be quite easy to get the electronic addresses for all of our colleagues in the House of Commons and you could reach them all with a few simple clicks. It would be important for this message to come from young people too.

Finally, health involves a number of elements: negative elements, what one must not do, and positive elements. I think that we need to leave some room for young people in this campaign. We need your help in order to get this through, but I would invite you to bring young people on board in your campaign.

Mr. Gauvin: Thankfully, you will hear from Mr. Mario Bujold, who is the director of the La gang allumée project, which targets high school students specifically. I am sure that Mr. Bujold hears your message.

Senator Hervieux-Payette: To close, I would like to say that if the foundation is successful, there will be a drop in consumption. With this drop in consumption, the foundation will see it levy drop, and its future will be affected.

Mr. Gauvin: It will disappear.

Senator Hervieux-Payette: What is your solution?

Mr. Gauvin: If we lose our job, it will be because we did it well. That is why, when Mr. Wilson introduced the taxes in the House of Commons, we told him that if people stopped smoking because of the taxes, he would lose revenue. He answered that he would have finally succeeded in what he wanted to do.

Mr. Damphousse: I am a proponent of Senator Nolin's practical approach. First, let us set up the foundation, start to reduce the use of tobacco among young people, and then we will see.

Mr. Gauvin: We could increase the levy.

Senator Hervieux-Payette: Some colleagues were tempted with the idea of legalizing the use of marijuana. I would just like to share with them the fact that, obviously, I would put marijuana in the same boat.

[English]

The Chairman: I see that we are opening up a new field.

Senator Kenny: I would like to welcome M. Damphousse and M. Gauvin. They are longstanding, credible members of the tobacco control community, and it is very good of them spend a beautiful afternoon with us.

Could you give the committee examples of what difference Bill S-15 would make in Quebec if it became law?

[Translation]

Mr. Gauvin: This would give us the means to fight on an equal footing against the tobacco industry.

Mr. Mario Champagne from the Alliance pour la lutte au tabagisme will be speaking with us shortly, and he can answer with more details. However, I can tell you that among its members, the Association du sport étudiant is extremely active, and that the youth sport movement involves young people from elementary schools, secondary schools, colleges and universities. For their activities in secondary schools, they have approximately $70 per year per school; $70 per year per school for activities. What do you want them to do with that? It is better than nothing, but it is not a whole lot.

I believe that a bill such as Bill S-15 will provide the resources required to breathe life into the imagination of these people, and into the imagination of young people, so that it can find channels, and provide opportunities which will be translated into reality.

In my opinion, that is the first positive impact that it would have in Quebec.

[English]

Mr. Damphousse: We are going to have, as part of the Quebec Tobacco Act, more restrictions coming into force as time goes by. One important restriction that will come into force in 2009 will require smoking sections to be enclosed with an independent ventilation system.

Every time we fought for these measures, there was never any campaign to convince the public of the necessity of going ahead with them. We heard arguments saying it was not a problem. The tobacco industry is effective in getting messages out so that people do not believe in the necessity of what we are working toward.

In the United States, we saw campaigns explaining the dangers of ETS, or environmental tobacco smoke, and why it is an important issue to be tackled. The foundation could lead such a campaign, which would help tremendously in educating the public of the need for these measures.

I expect that the restaurant associations will come out very strongly to try and delay even further the implementation of that measure in Quebec. How can we compete with them when we do not have the resources? In that respect, the foundation will be very helpful.

The tobacco industry's Operation I.D. is a PR stunt. I hope you are aware of it. We have confidential documents from the tobacco industry showing that this program was set up to prevent governments from going ahead with even stronger legislation against them, to show that they are honest corporate citizens and that they are doing something about the problem. People believe in that program. They do not know that the tobacco industry is behind it, and I believe that has to be explained to the public.

How can you reach the public? You need to undertake very large campaigns to reach everyone in every corner of every jurisdiction. I believe that your foundation will give us the tools to do that and expose what is going on. That is what has been effective in the United States, and that is what needs to be done here.

Senator Kenny: Would you have made any changes to the legislation?

Mr. Damphousse: I am not a lawyer. I have not studied all the provisions of the bill. I would be in a very difficult position to find a fault in the legislation. We have lawyers working for us, and from what they have seen, I think it stands as is for now.

[Translation]

Mr. Gauvin: In the bill's whereas clauses, I believe the last whereas reads as follows, in English, if I remember well: "Whereas the tobacco industry is suffering from..."

The idea is that it is suffering from a negative image as far as public opinion is concerned. Basically, that is the idea.

There is some truth to this whereas, and there are reasons for this. However, it concerns me to see this type of a whereas in a bill on tobacco use by young persons. Does this mean therefore that this bill is to help improve the image of tobacco companies? This image is rather negative.

Senator Nolin: You have to compare Bills S-13, S-20 and S-15. After having met a brick wall at the House of Commons, it was necessary to better explain the problem that the industry was having, because the industry came to us and said: "We agree with you, but we do not have the credibility to do this."

Thus, this whereas explains that the industry does not have the credibility, but that it is in agreement with the goal. Do not forget that this is a levy, it is not a tax. It was imperative to flesh out this argument. That is why it contains...

Senator Kenny: He is right.

Senator Nolin: It contains this whereas in the preamble. It is not there to allow the industry to complain but rather to indicate its lack of credibility when it comes to pursuing an objective such as the one established in Bill S-15.

Mr. Damphousse: So, this whereas is not in conflict with the objectives of the foundation?

Senator Nolin: No.

[English]

Senator Kenny: The preamble has no force in law.

Senator Nolin: We had a long debate about that.

Senator Christensen: Is there any evidence that an increase in taxation on cigarettes decreases youth smoking in any significant way?

Mr. Damphousse: The economic principle is well known. Every time the price of a consumer product is increased, it will have the effect of lowering sales of the product. We do not see Porches on the road all the time. We do see Honda Civics. The same principle applies here, especially with respect to teenagers. They do not have much buying power.

Economists have looked into that, and they have demonstrated that increasing the price of tobacco products will have an impact on consumption. Whatever the tobacco industry has been telling you, saying it has no impact, I would encourage you to look at their shareholder's report before 1992. It is amazing how they admitted that the measure that has hurt them the most since tobacco control started is taxes. When they complained about losing jobs because of these measures, they effectively admitted that the measure worked. They completely turned 180 degrees and said that they had to kill that argument. They started producing reports saying that increasing taxes has no impact. However, the data suggests that that measure does work. Not long ago in the United States, the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids produced another report supporting that idea as well.

[Translation]

Mr. Gauvin: To give you an example: In Quebec, before the taxes were lowered, the percentage of youth under the age of 18 who were smoking was 19 per cent before 1994. After 1994, it jumped to 38 per cent. Now, it is approximately 36 per cent among young people. That is almost double.

[English]

Mr. Damphousse: Since launching its campaign, has the tobacco industry approached you to be part of the foundation? What would be your response if the industry does approach you?

Senator Kenny: The tobacco industry did not see the legislation before we tabled it. It did not submit a brief to us before we wrote it. The first time we knew about its position was when the tobacco industry appeared the day you were referring to, when Mr. Bexon arrived. If you were in the room, you saw the committee members' jaws drop. At that time, you heard that the industry had a series of conditions: take away driver's licences; let us on the board; have the government pay for part of the cost. You heard our answer: no, no and no.

Since then, there has been no contact, with myself or my office, asking for amendments or changes. Our position has been clear: support the legislation as written or not at all.

The Chairman: Honourable senators, I wish to thank our witnesses for coming out this afternoon. We could chat about this issue for a while longer, but, as it is, we have learned a lot from you.

Our next witness, honourable senators, is Mr. Mario Champagne.

Please proceed.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Champagne, coordinator of the Alliance pour la lutte contre le tabagisme: Mr. Chair, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to speak before you this afternoon. Normally, when I speak in public, it is before young people in schools, students in medicine, so a fairly diverse audience. This is the first time, to the best of my recollection, that I am addressing senators. I am honoured, and if I seem nervous, you will understand why.

I am the person in charge of the tobacco control program at the Quebec Public Health Branch. I am also the coordinator of the Tobacco Control Alliance in the Quebec City and Chaudière-Appalache region, which is made up of 12 organizations that are very active in tobacco control initiatives. Today, I am also representing the Student Sport Association of the Quebec City and Chaudière-Appalache region.

I do not intend to give an epidemiological profile of smoking rates among young people. You know them, because there has been a great deal of information on this in the media. We can conclude that smoking among young people has reached an alarming rate and is not decreasing.

In addition, I can see that we can be part of the solution to the problem, or part of the problem itself. I have opted to be part of the solution to the problem, and my presentation today is made in that context. I hope that everyone in this room is on the same side of the issue.

Bill S-15 must be passed. I would therefore like to emphasize the importance of this bill. This is the only valid solution that would provide proper funding and an independent structure that will allow us to develop some new approaches for anti-smoking campaigns.

Marketing and public health experts have often wondered about the approaches traditionally used by anti-smoking campaigns aimed at young people. Unfortunately, it has been shown that these approaches may not be as effective as we might think. The updating and developments in the area of tobacco products has lead us to do so research. At the moment, we think the new approaches, such as changing people's attitudes will work the best.

Earlier, some questions were asked about what we would do with money from an independent foundation. We in the Quebec City region have a great many ideas, we are quite creative. What prevents us from going further and being effective in our anti-smoking efforts is that we do not have the funding we require. Unfortunately, despite all our good will, the money is simply not available.

If we look at what has happened in the US, and in particularly at California, we see that eight years ago 30 per cent of young people smoked. That figure is now 6.9 per cent. Thus, in eight years they have managed to reduce the rate from 30 per cent to 6.9 per cent. This success was achieved because significant amounts of money were provided and because direct and indirect health care costs of $8.4 billion were recovered: each dollar invested in the program resulted in revenues of $3.62, or close to for $4, for the government. If we followed the worst-case scenario, we could double the investment. This would be a huge victory, and that would be important.

In Massachusetts, there has been a 24 per cent reduction in smoking since 1996. This is important, because the officials there invested a significant amount of money - I believe that there was an earlier reference to an annual amount of some $40 million.

The best example of the effectiveness of campaigns to change young people's attitudes can probably be found in Florida. It was called the Truth campaign, and in two years, with over $150 million from the tobacco industry - which it got from the fines it collected - they managed to reduce smoking among young people by up to 40 per cent: about 54 per cent among high school students and 24 per cent among students in grade five and six.

These are some classic examples of investments in tobacco control programs that produced some results in the very short term. I consider periods of two, three or four years very short term. Usually, we try to achieve a result after 10 or 15 years, and we hope then that we did not make any mistakes. However, these examples are very striking.

Before talking about the campaigns we have had in Quebec, I would like to mention the State of Washington, in the United States, where money was spent on this cause over 15 years. These investments had very little effect on reducing smoking rates because they had single focus and were very limited.

Smoking must be attacked on several fronts. If we attack it on one front only, I think we are shooting ourselves in the foot. It is therefore important not to denigrate the past, but rather to add some new approaches.

Public Health officials, the Tobacco Control Alliance, and particularly the members of the students sports program in all the schools - they reach all young people - have developed or adapted a campaign to change people's attitudes similar to the Truth Campaign in Florida.

This type of campaign works very well with young people. Before launching this campaign with the resources at hand - I call them survival resources - we asked young people some questions to find out what made them less likely to begin smoking or to not smoke at all.

They told us: "Look, we hate being manipulated." We managed to decode this message. Traditional approaches are always based on the individual and health problems. For young people, health problems are very remote. So this approach does not work.

However, when we tell young people that they are being taken in, that they are being manipulated, that they are being treated like idiots, then they react. Young people are usually opposed to authority, whether it comes from their parents, government or educators. So their initial position is to reject anything that looks like authority.

However, when they are told: "You are being had, you are being taken for idiots, you must be fed up," we can reach them. The Truth Campaign showed, without any doubt, that when young people are involved and when they are given a say they answer: "We are not idiots, we can understand and in particular, we can take a stand regarding a corporate citizen that is trying to kill us."

At the moment, we do not have the resources we need to mount a campaign of this type. That is unfortunate, because we know that such an approach works. We know that we have the potential to adapt it to our provincial and Canadian contexts. Bill S-15 would provide the funding we need to develop and refine a campaign of this type.

I'm just showing you a poster that we give to students during the leadership training. Imagine what type of impact it could have on a roadside billboard, or in a 30-second advertising spot. We must really respond to this industry, which uses some very sophisticated, clever, effective and some times even Machiavellian images. We could respond to their advertising with some counter-advertising.

Some times when I meet with young people, I feel like a football player all alone at center field, and I see the two teams on either side ready to tackle. And right then I do not know exactly what to do. Should I press ahead, should I run away? The same is somewhat true of the tobacco industry. It is all very well to have the best will in the world, but if you are all alone with very few resources, there is not much you can do.

Earlier, my colleagues spoke about some funds for schools in the Quebec City region. Between you and me, I would say that $70 per school, per year, is a token amount more than anything else. The fact that some dollars would be added would definitely be very positive, it would be more symbolic than saying that we are investing money to try to solve the problem or to try to prevent it from happening. This would produce an impact, however minimal.

The CDC says that a country like ours should be spending between $9 and $22 per capita. Ohio spends $33 per capita. At the moment, before the tax increase, the $4 increase that has been announced, Canada was spending 66 cents per capita. Fortunately, following this increase in funding, the amount per capita is now around $1.41 to $1.50. That is a step in the right direction. However, we must not stop there. We must pass a law. If the law exists but is not enforced, it is of absolutely no use. We must have the funding we require to develop programs and strategies with a very short-term impact.

I have brought you in some examples of campaigns designed to change people's attitudes. These are campaigns that have been carried out and that could be used in the various Canadian provinces. With your permission, I will show you a video that illustrates exactly what these campaigns are like.

Before I show you the video, I would like to show you a few billboard advertisements. This is the type of campaign we should be advocating. We should be fighting fire with fire. At the moment, we are waging war using a slingshot, and we are up against people armed with bazookas. So it is not a fair fight. When you go to war, you must have the arms you require to make sure you have an impact. Bill S-15 would enable us to take a step in the right direction. It is a very good bill. You will tell me that I'm speaking in my own interest, but this bill really sends an alarm signal to the tobacco industry.

You have heard my colleagues speak about the games played by the tobacco industry and their PR people. Yes, they want to invest in a tobacco control foundation. They say that we should pass Bill S-15. But you do know that the tobacco industry is very manipulative. There is no point trying to hide from that fact. I think we have to realize that there are some hidden strategies.

It is all very well for the tobacco companies to say they support this bill. It is true that they do support it, but we must realize that cigarette manufacturers have had campaigns targeted at young people to get them to smoke more. Fortunately, these campaigns either had no effect or did not have the effect expected: young people did not smoke more or hardly did. However, one of their strategies was to tell young people not to smoke and they orchestrated all kinds of activities. And then, miraculously, they noticed that young people were smoking more. So they had found a way to make more money.

The fact that they are supporting Bill S-15 is not necessarily the thing. I think it is like having a fox in the chicken coop. I think we have to listen very carefully to what the industry is saying. We must consider that if the industry is supporting Bill S-15, it is a snow job in my view. They are just behaving like good corporate citizens.

That is my view, and as I often say, I respect it. I hope the others respect it as well. There is no smoke without fire. We must always be suspicious about good intentions, particularly those of the tobacco industry, which has been manipulating all of us for 60 years.

As you know, campaigns to change people's attitudes are not a new approach that just appeared on the scene a year ago. Changing attitudes about drinking and driving is a good example, as is the campaign to make people wear their seat belts. I think that we have found a lead now. The American experience shows that we can adapt this type of campaign to our cultural context, and possibly achieve good results with it in the end. In order to do that, we need money. The same thing always applies: without money, we get very few or no results. We must not forget that many players involved in the anti-smoking effort are pawns. When I say pawns, I am not really using it in a pejorative sense. They do their bit, and despite that, we do not achieve satisfactory results.

It is therefore important that we have the resources we require to develop our creativity so as to counter this advertising that is contaminating young people, and particularly the future of our country. Young people are our future: healthy young people are healthy brains. Sick young people result in a loss of productivity and they are less effective in achieving the common good.

This video shows a number of thirty second ads. There are about 20 of them, and the presentation lasts 14 minutes. However, what I can do, if you think that is too long, is to reduce it by presenting just some of the ads.

Video presentation.

Mr. Champagne: This is the type of ad we could develop and create based on our cultural context, using the funding that may be available. I would like to clarify and repeat that this is the approach that should be given preference, while not forgetting the other approaches that could be part of an overall strategy. There are many approaches that can be used to fight smoking.

Senator Nolin: Mr. Champagne, clause 31 of Bill S-15 mentions the evaluation of programs funded by the foundation.

I do not know whether you have looked at these clauses of Bill S-15. Are you satisfied with the system for evaluating the effectiveness of programs that receive funding? This would be mandatory.

Mr. Champagne: All projects and programs should be evaluated to determine their impact. Usually, people decide how much is needed to get the project off the ground, and they see that the program is evaluated. In order for projects to continue, we must know what impact they are having.

Senator Nolin: We must know whether the objectives have been met?

Mr. Champagne: Yes, whether the objectives have been met. The only way of meeting objectives is to evaluate the impact of the project. After studying the results, we must also decide whether to continue the program or adopt a different approach. A sine qua non condition of all projects is that they be evaluated and criticized.

Senator Nolin: Sub-clause 3 of clause 31 of the bill says that at least 10 per cent of the funds should be used to conduct the evaluations. Does that seem reasonable to you, too much, or not enough?

Mr. Champagne: For projects generally, the amount spent on evaluations varies between 10 per cent and 15 per cent. For some projects it is 20 per cent. However, 10 per cent is very reasonable, and within the normal range.

[English]

Senator Eyton: Mr. Champagne, is the incidence of youth smoking in Quebec different than in other parts of Canada?

[Translation]

Mr. Champagne: At the moment, we know that the smoking rate in the province of Quebec is 36 per cent.

Unfortunately, in recent years, Quebec has had a tendency to be one of the Canadian provinces with the most smokers. There are a number of reasons for that, and I do not want to go into them today, because the subject is quite complicated. In recent years, Quebec has been either first, second or third on the list of Canadian provinces in terms of the percentage of young people who smoke.

Senator Hervieux-Payette: It is important that you talk about the differences between the regions and Montreal. I think I have seen some statistics showing that in more remote areas, the rates were even higher.

Mr. Champagne: Yes, some statistics may show a higher smoking rate in some parts of the country. However, I think we have to look at this as a whole. When we do that, we can find some fairly universal approaches and solutions. There is a danger of taking action that is too focused, because sometimes, in order to deal with a very specific problem, we delay everything else.

Some regions are more affected than others. So effective action has to be taken locally. In answer to your question, yes, there are statistics that show that in some areas, perhaps in more isolated areas, tobacco use is higher in some respect.

Senator Hervieux-Payette: If we have a foundation that accepts projects, it might be important to ensure that the projects address the problem in different population groups. You were talking earlier about solutions or different ways of handling the projects, for example, billboards, television and educational programming. In remote regions where tobacco usage is higher, we should perhaps think about making greater efforts because they have limited resources for health programming for young people.

Mr. Champagne: There is no doubt that in the more remote areas health services and health care workers are less available and less accessible, so people often receive the standard programs. That is why it is important to have a foundation that would allocate more money where there are specific local and regional needs.

Within the general public, different cultural groups have different problems. For example, Asians, Hispanics, African Canadians and Caucasians all have specific health problems. So there needs to be enough funding to have a standard program with standard components but adapted to various regions.

I must admit that the program is currently not well developed because it needs considerable resources. Bill S-15, as I was saying at the beginning of my presentation, offers a solution which would enable us to further develop a program to meet the needs of these population groups.

[English]

Senator Kenny: My understanding was that you were not intending these ads as examples of ads for Quebec. They were ads that you had encountered elsewhere. In a program targeted at Quebec, there would be a different type of ad focused on the different groups in Quebec and the Quebec experience rather than what we saw just now.

[Translation]

Mr. Champagne: Senator Kenny, you are absolutely right. That is an example that could be developed, and as I often say, it could be adapted to our cultural and regional context. That example gives us a whiff, an idea of what we could do if we had more funding.

There are wonderful examples available, but in Canada and in the province of Quebec, we can use our own creativity in these models to adapt the program to changes in tobacco use and the needs of each region.

[English]

Senator Banks: You mentioned that in order to achieve a measurable result or a good result with a comprehensive plan, you need a lot of money. If I am a guy on the street, I know how tough it is to get the government to do things with its money. Here, the government is announcing a program in which it will spend nearly $100 million a year. That sounds like a lot of money to me.

[Translation]

Mr. Champagne: You are absolutely right. When we talk about $100 million - everything being relative - it is a lot of money when we do not have very much. But $100 million is not much money when we already have a lot.

The government has just announced an investment of nearly $100 million. That is a step in the right direction. However, in order to be effective, we need more funding. That $100 million raises the spending per capita in Canada from 66 cents to a few dollars. As we know, international standards, or at least the American approach developed by the CDC, show that a complete and effective program, one that brings results, requires an investment of between $280 million and $740 million.

The Canadian government has made a fine gesture by injecting $96 million. It must not stop there. If we want to be effective, it will take more money. I make the analogy with travelling on the highway; I can do my race in either a Porsche or a Volkswagen. I can start out and go some distance, but will the small car take me as far as the more powerful one? That is the question.

A blunt answer to your question would be that $100 million is a lot of money, but it is not enough to achieve the objectives that have been set to reduce tobacco use.

[English]

Senator Banks: Will you or the people that you represent undertake to make representations to parliamentarians? Do you think you will be able to convince them that this is not enough money? Bear in mind that a member of the House of Commons or his or her constituents know that this segment of the economy or this segment of the country or these people are after, with very good reason and deservedly so, $500 million or $700 million. We cannot accommodate that. The money is not there. Everyone has to be satisfied with less. Will you make an effort to convince members of the House of Commons that this case is so unique that they must make an exception? We know what the critical mass is, and anything less is like giving someone a quarter of the pill that can cure them.

[Translation]

Mr. Champagne: I believe that we need to start by requesting funding and demonstrating in a very rational way the needs that have been identified. Everyone wants to share this money, because everything is a priority. However, scientists will tell you that the number one problem in public health is tobacco use, and more particularly, tobacco use among young people, who are the future. If we want to invest not just to reduce health costs, but also to help young people who represent the future and who will be taking over from us, I believe that the funding that has been invested and the funding that is being sought are justified.

You are right in saying that we have always had to fight to get funding. This cause is a reasonable one. We need to make the effort to ask for funding and to justify the need. I believe that if we write up our request properly, we can obtain some funding. Of course, it needs to be a major and justifiable investment. It is good to get $100 million, but is it enough to be effective?

I quite agree with your comment that everyone wants a piece of the pie. We have the advantage of having a solid argument: Tobacco use is the number one cause of death.

[English]

The Chairman: I do not think there is any question your case is number one. Thank you, Mr. Champagne, for appearing. Your testimony has been most interesting.

I notice everyone has used the automobile analogy. Has the Villeneuve family really taken over here?

[Translation]

Mr. Champagne: I would like to mention, Mr. Chairman, a survey that was done in school boards in the Quebec City region. Students in the school were asked which sports were most popular. Hockey was at the top, since it is a religion with us and our national sport; basketball was third and Formula 1 racing was second. As far as I know, we have never done any publicity or had schools competing with each other in a Formula 1 league. So you can see the effect of advertising on young people. Patrick Carpentier and Jacques Villeneuve, unfortunately, do not have health promotion messages on their helmets or their cars. So there is a word to the wise!

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you. It shows up in the Montreal rush hour.

Our next witnesses, honourable senators, are representatives of the Conseil québécois sur le tabac et la santé and the Canadian Cancer Society.

Please proceed.

[Translation]

Mr. Marcel Boulanger, President, Conseil québécois sur le tabac et la santé: Mr. Chairman, I would first like to express my appreciation to Senator Kenny for having taken up the pilgrim staff a third time to introduce this bill in which he has put so much passion and energy, so much thought and hard work. I congratulate him. His example has energized and inspired us.

I am here today as President of the Conseil québécois sur le tabac et la santé. I am also here as a doctor, nearly retired now, who very early in my career, became aware of the problems created by tobacco use. First of all, there were the lung cancer patients we operated on at the Hôpital Notre-Dame, and then I worked at the Institut de cardiologie where, incidentally, I was the first successor to Dr Paul David when he retired as medical director. I have therefore had the opportunity for a very long time to see the health problems created by tobacco.

Second, I am here as a grandfather, contrary to one of the ads, which says that it is not a personal matter. Yes, it is a personal matter. As a grandfather, it upsets me to think that the eight pink lungs of my grandchildren represent the future of the tobacco industry. I can assure you that if I have the good fortune to become a great grandfather, I will still be active on this issue.

Before giving the floor over to Mr. Bujold, our executive director - we do not want to bore you with this because you have heard enough about our reservations concerning the tobacco industry's support - I would just like to summarize our position in the following way.

As you know, Voltaire questioned the existence of God. He said:

The universe perplexes me and I cannot imagine how this clock can work without a clock maker.

Maybe we can use the same reasoning here. Where the tobacco industry's action is concerned, I can say that it perplexes me and I cannot imagine that the industry really wants Bill S-15 to be passed with no strings attached.

We will say no more than that. We have the same reservations as all the others. I have told you who I am, and I will now tell you who we are. For 25 years, the Conseil québécois sur le tabac et la santé has been working with many other Québec and Canadian organizations to reduce smoking.

Our organization brings together some 20 associations that include anti-smoking campaigns among their activities. Among our members are the Canadian Cancer Society, the Fondation des maladies du coeur du Québec, the Association des médecins de langue française du Canada, the Ordre des infirmières et infirmiers du Québec, the Ordre des pharmaciens du Québec, the Ordre des inhalothérapeutes du Québec and the Fondation québécoise du cancer, to name just a few. All these groups have as part of their mandate a deep concern about health issues.

Mr. Mario Bujold, Coordinator, Conseil québécois sur le tabac et la santé: Mr. Chairman, I would also like to thank you for allowing us this opportunity to comment on Bill S-15.

Our activities centre primarily on information and education designed to protect the health of Quebeckers in general but also the upcoming generations, young people who are still in their early years and may begin smoking if we do not act in time.

For almost 10 years now, we have been addressing the issue of smoking among young people. More specifically, over the past six years, we have implemented a program called «Cool kids do not smoke,» which is run by young people for young people. They are the key to this program: They make presentations and work with other young people. Over the past six years, this program has reached more than 150,000 young people in Quebec in more than 300 schools and youth homes. This is a large number, but it is relatively small in the Quebec context.

In fact, there are over 1,000 secondary schools and nearly 3,000 primary schools and other institutions for young people. So we have reached part of the youth population in Quebec.

Bill S-15 is a source of great pride for us because it treats smoking as the major problem that it is. Unfortunately, over the past 50 years - since we have become aware of the effects of smoking on health - we have not invested enough resources and effort in effectively reducing smoking among young people. So it is with renewed pride, one might say, and with relief that we greet the introduction of Bill S-15, which we fully support.

Despite all the efforts that have been made in recent years - our Council, as our president mentioned, has existed now for 25 years - it is clear that the results are unsatisfactory, since the rate of smoking is still very high among young people. These statistics have already been mentioned and you have heard them many times. Smoking rates are not only high but have been on the rise in some parts of the country over the past few years. Given that fact, it is obvious that we lack the resources needed to resolve this problem effectively and adequately.

In 1994, when we had the problem with cigarette smuggling and lower taxes on cigarettes, statistics showed that smoking among young people had doubled in a space of five years in Quebec. Since then, the rate has more or less stabilized. However, we still have the highest rate of smoking in Canada; unfortunately, it is Quebec that holds this sorry record.

This public health tragedy - and I do mean tragedy, since 30 per cent of the population has a smoking habit, and one smoker in two will die of consequences related to tobacco use - has reached epidemic proportions. This epidemic calls for solutions that are equal to the problem. The legislation proposed by Senators Kenny and Nolin should therefore be approved, and we give it our full support. This bill is important, and it is essential that it be passed as quickly as possible. The longer it is delayed - and a number of years have passed already since earlier bills were tabled - the more deaths there will be and the greater the number of young people who will take up smoking.

In Quebec, 50 young people begin smoking every day. Each day that the passing of this bill is delayed means more young people will become addicted to tobacco. At some point, some of them will want to quit smoking but, as most of them find out after smoking for a few years, they will not be able to stop. Unfortunately, as the years go by, smokers will become ill and one in two will likely die from causes related to tobacco use. The facts are therefore striking and we must act quickly on this issue.

We would have liked to bring some young people with us today. Unfortunately, because of examinations and other things, it was not possible. Nevertheless, I would like to communicate to you some of the messages that these young people have given us.

We have worked for many years with young people and, day after day, we come face to face with the concerns that young people have on this issue. One might wonder whether or not young people take no notice of it, whether, in the end, they are not concerned about the problem of tobacco use. This is definitely not the case, because when we ask young people, they tell us that it is an important problem and that most of them want to stop smoking but cannot.

How can we help them? The bill is in itself an answer to this question. Young people will tell us that they come to realize - not when they begin smoking, because they take it up to imitate and be like their friends - after several years that they are slaves to their habit. They are victims of this dependency. Once they begin to understand how hard the tobacco industry works to sell them a certain image and to show them that smoking is a way of being "cool" and popular, and they suddenly see that this is not the way things really are, they realize that they can be "cool" without smoking, without being addicted to a product. They want to quit smoking, but they aren't successful. At this point, young people see that it doesn't make sense: they want to stop smoking but are unable to, and they need help.

I will quote what some young people have already written for us on this subject. These are the words of a 13-year-old girl named Kim, who is a member of our "Cool kids do not smoke" program that we run in schools. She put it like this:

It's absolutely forbidden to sell cigarettes to teenagers in Canada. But there are a lot of stores that do not even try to respect this law, even though it's designed to protect us... A convenience store shouldn't be helping to undermine young people's health - kids often do not understand all the dangers that cigarettes pose.

These are the words of a 13 year old who realizes, in fact, because she sees it happening too, that it is very easy to get cigarettes at convenience stores or in any other store, almost anywhere, despite the fact that it is illegal to sell cigarettes to young people. The law says that people under 18 years of age should not have tobacco in their possession.

Other young people have also written to us with slightly different views. Florence Cardinal, a 14-year-old girl, said this:

I smoke because I started to smoke and now I can't stop.

It's a problem at 14 years of age. Another 13-year-old girl from Dolbeau, Karine, wrote:

I think cigarettes pollute and I think it's awful that nine- or ten-year-old kids are starting to smoke.

A young woman named Isabelle, aged 17, said:

I'd like to stop smoking but I can't.

We see from these comments that there are concerns and doubts on the part of young people. They need help and resources to break free of their habit. If we multiplied these statements by 100,000, we would perhaps have a clear picture of how Quebec young people feel about this issue.

That having been said, the available resources are inadequate. The Centers For Disease Control in the United States is one of the organizations that has wide experience in this area. It has examined the issue of financing and concluded that, in order to have an effective and comprehensive program that yields results like those in the United States, in Florida, in Massachusetts and in other places, more money must be invested.

According to the Centers, between $280 million and $740 million should be invested every year to obtain an effective program for a country with a population the size of Canada's. The federal government's current investment of $98 million is a step in the right direction, but it is clearly inadequate. The experts say that an investment of between $280 million and $740 million is required. Bill S-15 is aimed at something in this range and would make it possible to reach these targets.

I would remind you that the tobacco industry spends the equivalent of $200 million every year in Canada to promote its products. We must always keep this in mind. The industry has been doing this for many years. It is because of these accumulate efforts that people have a certain perception of tobacco use. Why do young people, among others, still see smoking as a way to become an adult, a means of affirming oneself? The answer lies in the imagine that tobacco company advertising continues to associate with models and heros such as Jacques Villeneuve: winners, real grown-ups, smoke cigarettes. Advertising and adult behaviours have an influence and, generally speaking, are the reason we have this big problem.

The industry promotes a product that the government would really like to see disappear, because tobacco use is a health problem. However, this industry invests more money in selling its product than the government invests in its anti-smoking campaigns. It is a crazy situation, but it is indeed a real one. We must truly ask yourselves some hard questions. We have to take effective steps to halt this epidemic and prevent the problem from spreading. We must take effective action to reduce tobacco use, particularly among young people.

Perhaps we have reached a stage where regulations are necessary. We should deal with the issue of cigarettes and tobacco products in general in the same way that we deal with any consumer product that may affect health.

I will give you an example. Recently, newspapers reported that Irving Oil has decided to develop fuel that has a lower sulphur content. Sulphur is a product that causes major atmospheric pollution.

The Government of Canada estimates that, as a result of lower sulphur levels in fuel, there will be 2,100 fewer premature deaths, 93,000 fewer cases of bronchitis, 5 million fewer asthma attacks, and 11 million fewer multiple respiratory tract complications, in the next 20 years.

Consequently, if we can regulate a product like automobile fuel so that it causes less air pollution, with the figures we have, we can regulate tobacco. Imagine what we could accomplish if we had more regulations applying to tobacco, which we know contains at least 50 to 60 cancinogens products and over 4,000 chemicals. We have the power to do it. Governments have the power to regulate products like tobacco. No only do governments have this power, but we also have the technology to extract certain substances from cigarettes, to extract nicotine which, as you know, is addictive. There could be regulations to control or reduce nicotine rates. This is one of the things that could be done, once there is a commitment to find solutions so that the problem of tobacco use will not go on forever.

In closing, on behalf of the young people of Canada, on behalf of the young people of Quebec, and on behalf of the organizations that we represent, we say to you that now is the time to take effective action to prevent and reduce the use of tobacco in Canada. That is why we support Bill S-15 unreservedly and urge that it be passed as soon as possible.

Ms. Suzanne Lemire (Public Education and Public Issues Coordinator, Quebec Division, Canadian Cancer Society): I am the last witness. I do not know whether this is your last session today; if so, I am the last of the last.

I am representing the Canadian Cancer Society. I am responsible for public education and public issues activities. You have no doubt already spoken to people from the Canadian Cancer Society in your travels. Since I am the last one, I may be telling you something that you have already heard, but it will be a kind of summary.

The Quebec Division of the Canadian Cancer Society comprises nearly 250 sections in 250 communities, and it is these sections that collect money to fund cancer research. We carry on public education activities in all the regions, and we also have services for people with cancer and their families.

One of the priorities of the Canadian Cancer Society is to reduce tobacco use. I will repeat some figures that you have probably already heard, but they illustrate why reducing tobacco use must be a priority for an organization like the one I represent.

Of all high-risk behaviour, tobacco use carries the greatest risk of premature death. Half of all smokers die as a result of tobacco-related illnesses. All of the scientific evidence is in. There is no doubting the relationship between tobacco and lung cancer, as well as cancer affecting other organs, namely the organs of the respiratory and upper digestive tracts: the mouth, larynx, pharynx and esophagus. Tobacco is also associated with cancer of the pancreas, bladder and kidney. Smokers are three times more likely to develop cancer than non-smokers. Furthermore, the death rate in middle age, that is between 35 and 65 years of age, is three time higher among smokers than it is among non-smokers.

Tobacco is the cause of approximately half the deaths attributed to cancer among men. This really is significant. Since 1993, in countries such as Canada, the U.S. and Great Britain, tobacco-related deaths among women have been increasing rapidly and account for one third of all deaths attributed to cancer. This figure is higher than the number of deaths attributable to breast cancer. It is believed that this is the direct consequence of regular tobacco consumption by women, starting in the 1950-1960 period.

Several other well-documented illnesses are associated with tobacco, including heart failure and other circulatory problems, as well as respiratory ailments such as emphysema and chronic bronchitis. It is reported that 75 per cent of chronic bronchitis-related deaths are attributable to smoking, as are 20 per cent of vascular disease-related deaths and 35 per cent of deaths due to cardiac problems.

We must also consider deaths linked to passive smoking, that is to say other people's smoke. Exposure to second-hand smoke may cause minor or serious health problems.

In 1993, the Surgeon General's report mentioned that second-hand smoke led to approximately 3,000 deaths annually in the United States. Passive smokers have twice the risk of developing lung cancer as non-smokers who are not exposed to tobacco smoke.

Those are the figures. However, figures do not tell the whole story, in terms of cancer, smoking and illnesses. Figures aren't the be-all and end-all of the matter. We should also mention the suffering behind these figures.

When we talk about deaths, we are referring to premature deaths whereby those people who die from smoking-related illnesses have between 20 and 25 years shaved off their lives. The diseases that we talked about earlier cause often intense physical suffering, which in turn leads to a great deal of anguish and anxiety among the sick, that goes without saying, but also among their relations, family and friends. People are losing their fathers and their mothers in their 50s or their early 60s and even earlier sometimes.

Smoking takes husbands, wives, brothers, sisters, friends and colleagues. The Canadian Cancer Society Hostel accommodates people with cancer who leave their homes and their families to come to Montreal for five weeks to undergo radiation treatment. We are well placed to see that these statistics and figures that I have already mentioned are reflected by the numbers of people who come to the Canadian Cancer Society Hostel.

In addition to all the physical and mental suffering, there is a huge economic burden placed on taxpayers. In Quebec $2.77 billion are spent to tackle the consequences of smoking.

I would like to come back to our core concern, which is young people. Of course young people are healthy, and they are immortal. They are far removed from our financial and medical concerns. They believe that they will never be ill.

Risk is a stimulus for young people. Many young people, when they take up smoking, think it is no problem and they believe that they will be able to quit whenever they want. However, when they do try to quit, and this is what Mario was saying earlier, it's a rude awakening for them. They realize that it is much more difficult to stop than they had imagined.

The increase in smoking among young people is a Western phenomenon. It is taking place not only in Canada, but also in the United States and in Europe and is also beginning to reach those countries to which cigarette manufacturers export their cigarettes. In countries where traditionally women didn't smoke, in Asia, for example, we are beginning to see a situation where young teenage women are smoking and that is a new phenomenon.

The world and values are changing. Our traditional warnings alone on the dangers of smoking are no longer effective. We have to rethink our methods and undertake more research to come up with ways of reaching the imagination and beliefs of our young people. We are living in an ever-changing complex world that we have to monitor closely, if we want to have any hope of competing with or even eradicating the impact of the tactics used by the tobacco industry on our young people. Bill S-15 would give us the necessary resources for appropriate action. It is for this reason that the Canadian Cancer Society strongly supports this initiative which is in line with our own priority of reducing smoking.

In summing up, I would like to make one remark of a personal nature. I recently had the opportunity of participating in a Chinese cancer prevention programme which led me to realize that our actions have an impact which goes beyond our national borders. Cancer and smoking are also a major problem in China, which accounts for a quarter of the world's population. The Canadian approach to tackling smoking is being looked at with interest in China. Consequently, it is in our own interest, and we hope, that of other nations as well for us to take steps to maintain Canada's reputation as a country where living standards are very high. Bill S-15 does this.

Senator Nolin: Mr. Bujold, I wanted to come back to the question which was raised earlier by Senator Hervieux-Payette.

I just wanted to make sure, and you can help me on this matter, that Bill S-15 will enable programs to be targeted and adapted to a specific region with a specific problem. My question is for Mr. Bujold, but the two other witnesses are also free to answer. Is this what you see this bill accomplishing? Basically the bill will enable, let's say, a youth-focused program to target a specific group. You have also read the very timely and alarming testimony.

I know that this is not only a problem in the Saguenay/Lac St-Jean region, but let's for argument's sake, imagine that the problem is much more serious in Jonquière. We would therefore need to adapt a program, and the foundation would have to agree on a program to target, let's say, young girls in Jonquière, among whom the problem is most serious. Is that how you interpret Bill S-15?

Mr. Bujold: Absolutely. I think that this is what is increasingly happening. In terms of public health, it is often said that you have to think globally and act locally. This is the principle behind Bill S-15. I think that this is the thinking behind the bill, which will allow us to accomplish this. I think that the bill offers us this opportunity. The foundation will have to make sure that initiatives take into consideration specific realities and the various regions of Canada as a whole.

We are well aware that there are specificities and that there are more pressing needs in some regions. Some problems do not exist in other regions. Consequently, action must be appropriately targeted, both in terms of specific population groups and specific age ranges and also in terms of socioeconomic realities throughout Canada.

Senator Nolin: Madame Lemire, do you agree that the differing realities in various regions of Quebec mean that the foundation must have the means to implement very local solutions to tackle specific regional based problems, which might not be so serious elsewhere in Quebec?

Ms. Lemire: Yes. The Canadian Cancer Society works on this premise for all its programs. Therefore, any proposed initiatives have to be adapted to specific needs.

I believe that we have to work on the basis of this principle, but I would like to point out that there are models which could be implemented in many cases. Sometimes, minor changes might be necessary, but that doesn't mean that we have to design a completely new programme. Often, it is up to those people tackling a specific problem to adapt the model using the required resources. There are two different tracks here. Adaptation might be the way to go, but by the same token, some projects can be used by a whole range of stakeholders. I do not know whether you really understand what I'm saying here.

Senator Nolin: Yes, very well. There is flexibility.

[English]

Senator Eyton: I am a believer in examples and I am curious. We have a problem and everyone in this room recognizes we have a problem. What was the best thing each of your organizations did last year to offset that problem? How would Bill S-15 help make the best better? I am asking about a particular program and a particular effort or initiative each of you undertook last year.

[Translation]

Mr. Bujold: In fact, I could speak of two initiatives. The first, which is not directly targeted to the clientele, was to pressure governments in Quebec and in Ottawa to invest more in the solution of the smoking problem.

This work was done in partnership with many organizations. In Quebec, they were especially active trying to convince the Quebec government and also the Canadian government to contribute more funds. This is how the government decided to invest several million more dollars per year.

We must not hide the fact that the key is what allows us to intervene. And I repeat what I just said: it is extremely important for us to have tools to be able to work efficiently to counter balance all the work done by the tobacco industry that is trying to sell its product by all possible and conceivable means. I think that our first initiative was very important because it brought about very concrete results.

Another action that I deem to be very important is the reflection that was initiated regarding the "Cool kids do not smoke" program, which is now in its sixth year. We decided to take stock of this program to go even further in this direction and to propose solutions and approach better suited to the reality of youth. We find that this program is very good, it is working very well and is being used in more than 300 schools and each year it is becoming more and more popular. We clearly see the change in young people and the program must reflect this reality. So that was another accomplishment this year, it is very important and in the next few years, it will bring mid-term results.

Mr. Boulanger: Under Quebec Bill 444 on the smoking in public places and in the workplace, we ensured that each MNA and each minister was very well informed about this issue. For each of them we prepared a file containing basic articles on the tobacco and health issue as well as a letter emphasizing the indisputable facts contained in these scientific articles.

We relied on the MNAs' parliamentarians intelligence. We believe that this preliminary work certainly contributed to adopting the bill.

A moment ago, in other presentations, we were invited to put pressure on the Prime Minister. We thought of gathering a large number of young children from all over Quebec who would write to the Premier. We will appeal to the Société de l'âge d'or and invite every member to ask their grandchildren to write to the Prime Minister.

Ms. Lemire: Let me give you another example. The Canadian Cancer Society, a year and a half ago, I believe, created a tool to help smokers stop smoking. This tool is called "One step at a time" and it contains three brochures.

The first brochure is aimed at smokers who do not want to quit, not by trying to harass them or to make them feel guilty, but rather to give them a chance to reflex on their habit. The second brochure targets smokers who want to stop and who are getting ready to so, so that they may have the right tools to succeed. Finally, there is a brochure to help people who are willing to help someone else stop smoking, to encourage them not to harass smokers. We succeeded in gathering the necessary material to produce these tools by doing research and by trying to define smokers' needs more clearly.

Currently, we are trying to adapt this model to adolescents. This also takes research, because they will not be told the same things and we will not deal with adolescents in the same way as we deal with adults.

We have very limited means for doing this research. Truly, it is a shoestring budget. And once we have evaluated a prototype, if the evaluation is positive, we will want to use and distribute this tool. Clearly, more funds would help us greatly to do this and to assist adolescents who have a great deal of difficulty in stopping smoking.

[English]

Senator Adams: I come from Nunavut Territory, where more people smoke than do the people in the South. There used to be one territory. Now we have three: Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut. I see young people between 12 and 13 years of age smoking in our streets. Up to 70 per cent of Aboriginal people smoke compared to 35 per cent in the rest of Canada.

Where I live, it is very difficult to communicate with everyone in the community. Some communities are up to 1,500 to 2,000 kilometres away. There is no way to get to them using roads. Our government is currently looking into that problem.

Senator Banks referred to the $100-million that will be used to tell people that they should not start to smoke. Well, the program may not work up North. We have anti-smoking brochures hanging on the walls in my community now, but people are still dying of cancer caused by smoking cigarettes. The current initiatives are not working.

Your group talks to young people such as students in high school and university. However, we have visits from organizations maybe only once a year to let our people about what is happening in and around this issue.

The system would work better if we have organizations or a foundation for the kids in each community. Perhaps nurses and doctors could counsel the people in the community, but if the government spends $100 million on a centralized program, it will not work in my area. More young people are smoking. More and more people are dying of lung cancer every year where I live, yet the people are not really concerned about it.

How do we convince 12 and 13 year-olds to stop smoking? Young people should be counselled in school about the dangers of starting to smoke.

If Bill S-15 passes, the foundation must work at setting up local no-smoking organizations. That is my suggestion. Maybe a doctor would understand more about it.

Mr. Boulanger: What I understand you to be saying is that due to your local and social situation, it will be crucial that your communities can count on themselves. You are suggesting that we set up organizations that would be self-contained in each and every one of these villages. In other words, people from the village speak to people in that village.

Starting with the younger generation, we can probably bring them up to have a life without nicotine. There is life beyond nicotine. This is the message we should be able to pass along.

It is much more expensive to have fragmented programs all over the place, but we have to do them. For those of us in the South, it is important to keep in mind the problems in the North. They should concern us, too. I get your message.

If a parliamentarian came to me and said, "Now, with $100 million, this matter is being dealt with," I would answer, "No, it is not." The Canadian experience and the experience gathered from around the world is that this is not enough money. It is a good start, but it is not enough. Ideally, we should get that $100 million and we should get Bill S-15.

One-hundred million dollars of uncertain money, because it remains uncertain, is promised for five years. Will it be there in five years? Past experience teaches us to be cautious in that regard. Bill S-15 must go through if we want to have this matter dealt with properly.

[Translation]

Senator Hervieux-Payette: I have a question for Dr. Boulanger. How do we define dangerous levels of smoking? When does a person get addicted, is it three cigarettes a day, ten cigarettes a day? Often, a smoker will tell you: "But I only smoke for social reasons, or I only smoke at the end of the day." Can we say that that person's health is in danger?

Mr. Boulanger: With the product that we currently have, we can definitely say that the best cigarette is the one that you do not smoke. There is no harmless dose. We now think that some people can smoke three cigarettes a day and always stay at that level. Apparently, they may be carrying a defective gene that does not allow them to reach the seventh heaven of nicotine. Ten per cent of the population might belong to this category. Perhaps 10 per cent of the population can safely smoke 3 cigarettes without any danger of increasing to 25 cigarettes as the industry wants them to do. I consider that people who only smoke three cigarettes a day are not endangering their health very much. On the other hand, some say that second-hand smoke is equivalent to three cigarettes a day for some people. Recently, a barmaid in Australia was awarded $450,000 by the Supreme Court because of throat cancer resulting from second-hand smoke, which is about the equivalent of two or three cigarettes a day.

Two or three cigarettes a day are a small threat to health, but the threat does exist. These smokers are often role models. Generally, they are women who, for instance, only smoke three cigarettes a day because they still think that smoking makes them look elegant. So I would say that they are role models who give a poor example.

Senator Hervieux-Payette: Mr. Bujold, how do you explain the lack of regulations regarding the content of cigarettes? I come from the Joliette region. When I was young, cigarettes were made with tobacco grown in the region, and that is what my parents and my grandparents smoked. They made them at home. And I felt that the tobacco did not contain a whole list of chemical additives because we only bought shredded tobacco from our region. What answer do you get regarding the use and the permission to use cigarettes that contain all these additives? What kind of arguments have been given up to now?

Mr. Bujold: Well, it is very simple, they say that it is a legal product. Gasoline is a legal product, but it is far more regulated than tobacco. Teddy bears are legal products that are far more regulated than cigarettes. I think that there is a lack of political will. The government has the power to issue regulations to control dangerous products that endanger people's health.

If the government does not do it, it is certainly not because of lack of evidence. More than 50 years of research on this matter has demonstrated without doubt that tobacco kills, and that it kills many people: in Canada, 45,000 persons per year, without mentioning all the suffering and all the people who fall sick, but who do not necessarily die. And I must tell you that this is quite illogical.

The government should treat this product like all other products that can and do cause health problems. This is not being done, because I think that there is a very strong lobby on the other side of the fence. We know it well. This explains why the product is not regulated.

Certainly, if we were to market it now, with our current knowledge of the product, and if the company said to the government "Here we have a product and 50 years of research that demonstrates that our product kills," this product would clearly never be marketed. The government would say: "You are asking us to market poison, and to distribute it without any kind of regulations." This is more or less what the situation is with cigarettes.

Mr. Boulanger: Let me add that the tobacco that you were smoking did not contain any ammonia. We know that by adding ammonia while processing the tobacco, the famous Malboro cowboy gained his victory.

What does ammonia do for tobacco? It allows, with every puff on a cigarette, to extract a larger number of nicotine molecules which will reach the brain in larger doses, which acts on the brain's receptors and produces a high. This high involves all local neurotransmitters and quickly engenders dependency.

On the other hand, there are things that we cannot be told because they are industrial secrets, as the industry tells us, and thus we cannot know what the differences are between different brands. But certainly, our grandfathers who cut their own tobacco did not smoke the garbage that is being smoked today.

Senator Hervieux-Payette: My last question is for Ms Lemire. You quoted statistics from the United States and Europe. On American television, we were shown a lady smoking a cigarette through a hole in her throat. I saw this on the English-language channels. We know that in English Canada, there is less tobacco consumption than here in Quebec. Now Quebec is much less affected by the publicity that is broadcast over the English-language networks, because statistics show that Quebecers do not watch much English television.

Second, we can compare Latin countries to northern countries in Europe. When I travel in Latin countries, I must say that I always come back in a state of shock, because people there smoke ten times more than here and, obviously, this is very unpleasant because non-smoking areas in restaurants are almost non-existent.

Did the Canadian Cancer Society make this comparison? Is the death rate due to cigarette smoking higher in southern countries than in northern countries?

Ms. Lemire: I do not have these figures. I do not know if anyone here has them. However, we can say that in northern countries, tobacco is probably more regulated than in southern countries, as is the case in Denmark, Sweden, Finland, England and Australia. Regulations are certainly more developed in those countries than in Spain or Italy. Thus there are fewer people smoking in public places. I do not know whether anyone wants to add anything to this.

Mr. Boulanger: I do not have any exact figures, but I have just arrived from Spain. The newspapers often mention the problem of lung cancer linked to tobacco use. There is much more awareness of this now.

There is also what cardiologists call the French paradox or the Mediterranean paradox. These people are said to eat a great deal, to drink a great deal of wine, to smoke a great deal, and nonetheless, they seem to have some kind of protection against cardiovascular disease.

We must look closely at what they eat: They eat a great deal of garlic, much olive oil and many vegetables. Also, Europeans walk much more than Americans do. Finally, they exercise more. They spend more time outdoors, and there are fewer cases of obesity.

There are also some genetic factors. For instance, Finns have been observed to have a really unbelievable genetic factor with regard to cardiovascular disease. I cannot be very specific about this, but now we observe that they are getting much more concerned about lung cancer, which worries them as much as it worries us. In France, a few more measures are being taken against the tobacco industry.

Senator Hervieux-Payette: I feel that there is a sociological factor, namely that Latin countries are a bit more permissive. Our rate of smoking is higher than in the rest of the country; however, we are less influenced by anti-tobacco campaigns because we have less exposure to the publicity broadcast over the English- language networks.

It also seems that in northern countries people have adopted habits that are good for their health, and the use of abstention from tobacco is one of the factors that influences health as much as diet does.

Mr. Boulanger: We also know that the rate of smoking is much higher in the less advantaged socio-economic groups. You can see that tobacco advertising does not show us the true clientele. We are shown people from the upper social classes. Basically, a large share of their product is destined for the damned of this earth. I will grant you that they would not be very effective in advertising.

Ms. Lemire: I work for the Canadian Cancer Society, which is an organization that covers all of Canada. I find that a great deal of work is being done for Canada as a whole and that we need to adapt our tools to the Quebec culture, to the Quebec mentality, which may have a few differences with what we find in western Canada, for instance.

We need to adapt to different regions, as we said earlier. In Quebec, for instance, we absolutely must adapt our tools and our media messages to Quebec culture.

[English]

Senator Banks: I am worried that at times the health community says that $98 million is a step in the right direction, as though this amount were incremental and that it will able to convince the government to do more. To the extent that the health community accepts and favours the proposal of April 5, the government will be able to say that it has done its job and we will never see Bill S-15. I believe it is a choice between one or the other. We are not going to be given $498 million a year. It will never happen in a million years. I believe we will either have the $98 million a year contained in one proposal now before Parliament, or we will have the $400 million a year contained in the other proposal presently before Parliament. I do not believe there is any hope that one will be piled on top of the other.

It is in that context that I ask for your help in convincing members of the House of Commons to vote for Bill S-15. No doubt it will handily pass the Senate, but there are other forces at work in the House of Commons that do not pertain to the Senate of Canada.

Mr. Boulanger: You are not suggesting that we try to get the health community to refuse the April proposal, are you?

Senator Banks: I do not suggest that that is possible.

Mr. Boulanger: This has been our concern. We have all those bills: S-13, S-14, S-15. The first one was scratched for some sibylline reason. The second one was scratched as well. I do not know what it will take to eliminate the third one.

Senator Banks: My concern arises in part from the fact that the government is now going to members of the health community asking them to advise it on the best way to spend the $98 million. To the extent that this happens and to the extent that the health community buys into the program, the government is able to say to the members of the House of Commons, "We have taken care of the matter; the health community is behind us, so we do not need this."

Mr. Boulanger: If we get only the April proposal, it is not enough. Decartes used to say:

[Translation]

"Common sense is always in short supply." We are going to be getting $100 million to fight smoking, but the tobacco industry will continue to spend $200 million on the other side. It doesn't make sense.

[English]

This is not common sense, we can be sure of that. If Bill S-15 does not pass and we get only the April proposal, I can assure honourable senators that the government will not be congratulated.

The Chairman: Thank you. Your presentation was most informative and we enjoyed chatting with you.

The committee adjourned.

---