Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs,
Science and Technology
Issue 13 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 26, 1996
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, to which was referred Bill S-5, to restrict the manufacture, sale, importation and labelling of tobacco products, met this day at 9:35 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Mabel M. DeWare (Chair) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, senators. We are here this morning to consider Bill S-5, an act to restrict the manufacture, sale, importation and labelling of tobacco products. With us this morning is Mr. Eric LeGresley, Legal Counsel for the Non-Smokers' Rights Association.
I should like to welcome the delegation of parliamentary staff from South Africa which is with us this morning.
Mr. LeGresley, the floor is yours.
Mr. Eric LeGresley, Legal Counsel, Non-Smokers' Rights Association: It is very fortunate that we have people here from South Africa. There are currently some very interesting developments on the tobacco front there. Dr. Zuma has been making great strides.
I wish to thank you for inviting the Non-Smokers Rights' Association here today. It is a great pleasure to speak to Bill S-5. As you can see from our brief, we are endorsing Bill S-5 because we believe in the principles which underlie it, principally, that this starts to strike at the heart of the tobacco business. This bill deals with product modification, not only with the peripheral elements of tobacco. This bill not only deals with the box and whom it is being sold to, but is starting to address the cigarette, which is very important.
We are also supportive of Bill S-5 because of the general approach taken in the legislation, it being largely driven by regulation.
It is necessary for the tobacco industry to be addressed via a flexible approach because of the nature of the industry. This is an $8-billion-a-year industry, an immensely profitable industry. Relatively few industries come anywhere close to the profitability of the tobacco industry. That profitability is dependent upon addicting a new generation of children each decade. The only way in which the industry can do that is by innovation, by evading legislative initiatives, and by side-stepping the public health measures which we all want to have implemented.
If we bind ourselves to measures that require amendment by Parliament every time the industry takes steps to evade, we will always be behind the industry. This bill is very important in that regard, because much of its authority to amend is through regulation.
Senator Robert Kennedy said in 1967, speaking of the tobacco industry:
The industry we seek to regulate is powerful and resourceful. Each new effort to regulate will bring new ways to evade... Still, we must be equal to the task. For the stakes involved are nothing less than the lives and the health of millions around the world.
He got it right 30 years ago. We got it wrong in the interim period.
As I said, we need to deal with the entire cigarette, because the industry will evade the intent of the legislation if we do not. I will give you an example dealing with advertising.
What I am showing you is an advertisement from France. It is not a cigarette advertisement. France has banned cigarette ads. The industry has carefully found a way around that. This is an advertisement for lighters, which would be legal in France.
The industry very skilfully evades every attempt to regulate it. Whether on the advertising front, the product front or on to whom tobacco products can be sold, it will always try to evade control because of the rational profit maximizers. There is a lot of money at stake.
If we dealt with tobacco alone, as one might interpret from clause 4 of the bill, we would be missing some of the intent of the legislation. The bill is essentially designed to set up a system by which we can control the amount of nicotine and tar being delivered to the smoker. However, as I read the legislation, it is unclear whether it is only the nicotine in the tobacco or is the nicotine in the cigarette.
We can soak tobacco in a bit of hot water, extract the nicotine from it and add that nicotine to any part of the cigarette we want. We can put it in the paper, the filter or, as they did in the United States in the 1980s, in a little metal tube running down the middle of it. If we are only controlling the amount of nicotine in the tobacco, we are letting the industry take the nicotine out of the tobacco and put it in the paper or the filter. There are products on the market right now in which the nicotine comes out of a filter-type substance when the smoker draws upon it.
They can meet the low nicotine requirements of this legislation by removing the nicotine from the tobacco and placing it right back in the paper. Of course, when the cigarette is burned, the nicotine is released from the paper, the same as it is released from the tobacco. Therefore, you would still be delivering the same amount of nicotine to the smoker. If the intent is to regulate that, then we have to expand the provisions to include the entire cigarette.
The same thing is true of the additives. The additives can be taken out of the tobacco and placed in the paper or the filter. The very same logic applies. I think there is a need to expand the legislation to include the entire cigarette, including the filter.
There is also a need to ensure that this legislation operates on a permissive framework. Instead of telling the tobacco industry what it cannot do, we need to be telling it what it can do. We need to say effectively, "You cannot sell cigarettes. Notwithstanding that, you may be permitted to sell cigarettes subject to the following conditions." Their ability to innovate in order to evade the intent of the legislation is greatly reduced if we tell them what they can do rather than what they cannot do.
As well, the definition of "tobacco additive" in this legislation must be expanded. First, we should be talking about additives to the cigarette, not just additives to the tobacco. Not only do we need to discuss those additives which in and of themselves are harmful, but we need to talk about those additives which in and of themselves are not harmful but which make the cigarette more palatable and, therefore, increase the consumption, consequently increasing the detriment being done to health overall.
As one of my colleagues likes to say about the Jonestown massacre, the Kool-aid did not kill people, it just made it palatable to drink the cyanide. We need to look at all additives that increase harm, not just those that directly increase harm.
Finally, there are a few lesser amendments which it would be desirable to make. The definition of "tobacco additive" talks about chemicals. It does not talk about things that are added to the cigarette and increase harm, but are undertaken by means other than chemical processes; for instance, something physical can be added to the cigarette such as a piece of metal. There is chemistry going on here, certainly. However, we also know that the tobacco companies put holes in the papers of cigarettes to trick the smoking machines into indicating that there are different yields of tar and nicotine. That operates via a physical process. I would suggest that "additives" should include anything that is done to the cigarette, whether by chemical or physical means, which increases the harm.
We also should look at the use of the phrase "warning statement" in clauses 5 and 6 . The minister is given wide latitude under this bill to change the language of the message which appears on cigarette packages. It is called "information" in clause 11. However, clauses 5 and 6 speak of a "warning statement." I should like to remove the term "warning statement" so that the minister's ability to put wording or information on the package is not circumscribed by that which one could call a "warning." There may be information, other than health warnings, which it might be desirable to place on cigarette packages.
There is also in this bill the phrase "cancer-causing tars." I should like to change that phrase to the word "tar." There are a great number of substances which, together, we collectively call "tar" in cigarettes. If we call them "cancer-causing tars," the industry will argue about causality with respect to cancer for every single substance included in that definition of tar. Cigarette packages right now just list tar. There is an educational value in calling it a cancer-causing tar, but if we have to prove that that tar causes this cancer for every single one of those substances we will get into a debate in which I do not think we necessarily have to engage.
Finally, as I read the legislation, it talks about harm done by the smoking of tobacco. I think we can broaden that to include chewing tobacco as well.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Those are my comments.
Senator Bosa: You said that the tobacco industry is a highly profitable industry. Do you know what the return is on capital?
Mr. LeGresley: For some, I know that the return on invested capital exceeds 100 per cent. I could get back to you with the exact numbers.
Senator Bosa: Since you made reference to it, I thought you might be aware of the numbers. At one point in your testimony you said that we should not tell the industry what it should do, but that we should ask the industry what it can do. In other words, what can they do to minimize the impact of the harm that smoking does to people?
Mr. LeGresley: I may have misspoken. I intended to say that we, the state, should be telling the industry what it can do, not what it cannot do.
For example, right now, the industry has a right to market its product, except in those manners in which the state says it cannot engage. If we took away the right to market the product and in exchange gave permission to market the product, just as we do with pharmaceutical drugs and the way the provinces do with drivers' licenses, then we would be granting permission to the industry. We would be in a permissive framework. They could not do anything that Parliament had not indicated they could do. Therefore, their ability to evade would be very much reduced. That is the point I intended to make.
Senator Bosa: On a couple of occasions you referred to the minister. You do know that this is a Senator's Private Bill. In fact, the sponsor of the bill is Senator Haidasz, who is here this morning. I was wondering whether you had elevated him to the rank of minister.
Mr. LeGresley: No, I meant the Minister of Health.
Senator Bosa: How strong is the Non-Smokers' Rights Association? There are several interest groups that harp away at smoking problems.
Mr. LeGresley: The Non-Smokers' Rights Association has been around for 24 years. I do not know the membership numbers. It is an open membership which is broadly supported by people from all parts of the country. We have won accolades around the world, including the World Health Organization's gold medal. We are a long-standing, responsible, important voice on tobacco issues in Canada and around the world.
Senator Bosa: How does it sustain itself financially? For instance, I presume you are a believer in non-smoking, but I am sure you must have been paid your expenses to travel and to prepare such an elaborate brief as you have prepared. How does the association support itself financially?
Mr. LeGresley: Some of the money comes from contributions of members. Some of it is government funding from various levels of government. Some of it is derived from the Tobacco Demand Production Strategy, which was implemented in the wake of the tax rollbacks in February of 1994. There is a variety of sources of funding.
Senator Bosa: Since that historic year 1964, which is when the Surgeon General announced the ill-effects of smoking, do you think any headway has been made up to the present time?
Mr. LeGresley: Clearly, headway has been made.
Senator Bosa: Other than the fact that we have made people aware of the consequences?
Mr. LeGresley: Certainly the rates of smoking in many western developed countries have gone down quite significantly. Canada had the highest smoking rate in the developed world in the mid-1980s. As a result largely of improved information via health warnings, general public education campaigns, and particularly tax increases in the late 1980s and early 1990s, we have dropped from being the highest to being the thirteenth. We have a much faster decline in smoking rates than, for instance, the United States does, where cigarettes have remained very inexpensive.
Senator Bosa: Is your organization aware of similar interest groups in Europe, or in other parts of the world?
Mr. LeGresley: Yesterday, I was dealing with the Minister of Health in Zimbabwe. We are involved in tobacco issues around the world all the time. The industry operates globally. There are only four or five major companies. These are enormous entities. The Canadian arms of these companies are just a tiny little piece of the empire. They operate globally, and we all have to operate globally. I have worked on tobacco issues in a number of countries, yes.
Senator Bosa: Is there an area of the world or a region of the world that has a greater percentage of smokers than other regions?
Mr. LeGresley: Certainly, Eastern Europe has very heavy smoking rates. Amongst the male population in China, the smoking rates are extremely high. The Far East and the rapidly developing countries are the focus for the industry right now.
Senator Bosa: What about Turkey?
Mr. LeGresley: I do not know. Rob Cunningham may be able to speak to that.
Senator Bosa: Do you know why I mentioned Turkey? In Italy, usually when someone says to you, "You are a very heavy smoker," the expression is, "You smoke like a Turk." The question follows, "Well, who smokes more than a Turk?" The answer is, "Two Turks." I was wondering whether Turkey is a country that is known for its heavy smokers.
Mr. LeGresley: I cannot speak specifically to Turkey.
[Translation]
Senator Losier-Cool: In the Library of Parliament notes we have been given, I see, Mr. LeGresley, that you have done a lot of work on tobacco advertising. My question does not refer directly to Bill S-5.
I would like to know what your position is with respect to a ban on sponsorship advertising at cultural events. One could cite the example of the tennis tournament in Montreal, and the fact that some believe du Maurier and Rothmans should not be advertising at such events. What is your position on advertising at major cultural and sporting events by financial backers of such events?
Senator Lavoie-Roux: There is also the Montreal Jazz Festival.
Senator Losier-Cool: Yes, there is international tennis, and the Vancouver Festival as well.
[English]
Mr. LeGresley: If we are to address the problem of tobacco promotion, we must address it in all of its forms. Whether the sign is a Player's sign encouraging children to smoke or whether it is a Player's racing sign encouraging children to smoke, it has the same effect. We vastly undermine any advertising restrictions that we might place on the tobacco industry if we leave wide open the ability for the industry to sponsor through their tobacco brands various sports and cultural events.
That is not to say, however, that I am opposed to tobacco industry sponsorship of arts and cultural events. I am very supportive if they want to engage in philanthropy and do good deeds in society, provided they do not utilize their brands to do so. I would support an Imperial Tobacco tennis centre in Montreal, but not a du Maurier tennis centre in Montreal.
Senator Bosa: What is the difference?
Mr. LeGresley: One is a tobacco brand. One utilizes the imagery, the sophistication and the allure of the du Maurier cigarette brand; the other is a corporation which is pre-existing and not created for the purpose of promoting a tobacco brand. Children buy du Maurier; they do not buy Imperial Tobacco.
Senator Losier-Cool: Is that not pushing it a little too far? Are you aware of any research on the effect of those sponsors' influence on tobacco smoking by young people? Do you think when they go to international tennis and they see those posters, it will create le goût de fumer?
Mr. LeGresley: I do not think the individuals showing up at the events are the targets of those sponsorships. If you can you go to the National Arts Centre and it has du Maurier down in the bottom corner, you are not the target of that. However, if you walk around, you will notice the signs for these events are up many months after the events have taken place.
I was in a store just the other week in Ottawa. Three months after an event occurred in Toronto, there was still an electric Benson & Hedges sign up promoting that event. It occurred a long time ago. No one would be going to it. The sponsorship for the event is a pretext for putting up signs to encourage adolescents to enter the tobacco market. It does nothing else.
I certainly do not want jazz festivals to be shut down. These tobacco companies should not be prevented from giving money for that purpose. However, I do not think that, in order to maintain tobacco industry money flowing to these events, we should sell out a future generation of children. We know that the target of the advertisements is not the people who will be there. That is a pretext. There are signs in Vancouver advertising an event taking place in Halifax. We must address the use of tobacco brands and brand imagery on sponsorships.
Senator Losier-Cool: We know they want to promote smoking.
Mr. LeGresley: Yes. They are in the cigarette business.
Senator Haidasz: Have you had an opportunity to read the Washington Post review of the American Academy of Addiction Medicine which was held two weeks ago in Washington? There were many experts there, including the FDA. I am very disappointed that the FDA in Washington does not propose direct legislation to attack the tobacco content-nicotine, for example, and the cancer-causing tars. There was more window-dressing to the FDA representative's testimony than should be expected of such an official.
Does your association firmly support that, in order to reduce nicotine addiction in the young, we must draw attention to the need for some strong legislation to reduce nicotine and cancer-causing tars?
Mr. LeGresley: We are supportive of taking control of the product itself. In that sense, I agree with you. I am a lawyer; I am not an addiction expert. So I cannot speak to the issue of whether reducing nicotine in all nicotine products is the most desirable approach to take. It might be that some untoward effects would result from that. Addiction experts should speak about that.
We know that smokers are self-medicating with respect to nicotine in the process of smoking. While it might assist in deterring new entrants into the market, there might be some adverse consequences for existing nicotine addicts, who might increase their intake or change their smoking patterns in order to take in the amount of nicotine that they need. That is outside my field of expertise and I cannot go into that in detail.
Senator Haidasz: I asked the question because, from what I heard in Washington two weeks ago, I understand that the present techniques used to stop nicotine addiction are not perfect. They are less than 40 per cent successful. Therefore, should we not concentrate on the young people, the teenagers who are beginning to smoke, and prevent any tobacco product that will contain nicotine to such a level that they would start to become addicted to it?
Mr. LeGresley: I agree that adolescents must be a very important target for the state's legislative efforts. I think you will find political support for that among smokers and non-smokers alike. Smokers do not want their children to smoke, as you know.
I must be concerned, too, for the 6 million existing Canadians who are also in need of nicotine on a daily basis. I would not want a solution that addresses only the problems of children and leads either to the adverse marketing strategies of the industry or to inaction on the part of Parliament for those existing smokers.
Senator Haidasz: Has your organization made any representations to the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Health that there should be some incentives, as far as income tax is concerned, to provide some tax relief to smokers who want to quit, in order that they may pay for all of the better, so-called, cessation-of-smoking techniques, so that they can try them? They cost a lot of money in some places. Has your organization made any representations to the Minister of Finance to help these people who want to stop smoking but for whom some of the techniques are too costly or the clinics actually charge too much money and they are not income tax deductible?
Mr. LeGresley: I am not aware of any submissions, and I stand to be corrected on that point, made by the Non-Smokers' Rights Association with respect to tax relief for smoking cessation. Representations have been made with respect to differential taxation for tobacco products based in part upon the sort of concerns that you are raising in this bill, or differential marketing ability of various products based on the harm they do in society. Perhaps there may be more avenues to market those products which are less harmful. That may eventually address the sort of concern you are raising here. On smoking cessation itself, I am unaware of any.
Senator Haidasz: For your information, I have made some representations both to Don Mazankowski, when he was in charge of the budget as Minister of Finance, and to the present Minister of Finance. There does not seem to be any inclination for the department to move in that area.
What about a further increase in taxes on cigarettes? What is your association's policy or view on that matter?
Mr. LeGresley: Our view on that matter is very clear. We were opposed to the tax rollbacks in February of 1994. We remain opposed to those tax rollbacks. We felt there were other avenues for addressing those concerns. We would have preferred to see export taxes remain on those products, since we know that almost all of the products being smuggled were of Canadian origin anyway. The industry was sending them to upstate New York and bringing them back quickly.
No, we would want to see taxes rise in Canada to world levels. The anomaly is the United States. If you look at OECD countries, the United States is right at the very bottom of the list in terms of their tobacco taxation policies.
Our cigarettes are extremely inexpensive as compared to those in western Europe; so we would support significant tax increases.
Senator Forest: I was wondering, sir, what increase in cigarette smoking was noted after the taxes were reduced?
Mr. LeGresley: I cannot give you those figures now, but I will commit to provide you with an Ontario Tobacco Research Unit study that has those numbers. Particularly among the most price-sensitive groups, there were significant increases.
Senator Forest: I have just returned from Asia and I can certainly back up what you are saying about smoking there. Coming from Canada, to me it seems atrocious.
We certainly do not want to see our arts and sporting events go without money. On the other hand, is it realistic to think that the tobacco industry will donate funds without having the positive income they will receive from their advertising?
Mr. LeGresley: The answer to that is both yes and no. There are some events where they want to maintain a profile and they may continue to support those, but I agree that they will withdraw from a large number of the events into which they are presently injecting some money. They are supporting those events for political purposes. If they no longer can meet those political purposes, essentially if sponsorships are being drastically reduced, they will remove themselves from those.
If we did not move on the sponsorship front and they no longer needed to maintain that political support, if I was running one of those events, I would ask myself: "Are they going to continue to send me the money anyway, knowing that a bill on this sort of issue will only come up before Parliament every now and then?" It will not happen again next year if it does not happen this year. We might see a withdrawal of those funds irrespective of whether the tobacco industry continues to have the ability to do so.
Senator Forest: In the long run, we might hope or dream that, if the industry did not sponsor these events, our Canadian government might save enough in health care costs to provide a little more support for them.
Mr. LeGresley: There is also the fact that other industries often do not want to be associated with an event because the tobacco industry is associated with it. Peter Gzowski, a while back, interviewed Keith Kelly from the Canadian Conference of the Arts. Peter Gzowski mentioned that he knew of five companies that were not engaging in the sponsorship of an event because there was a tobacco association presence there. You can see that many manufacturers would want nothing to do with the tobacco industry because it would be adverse to their own interests.
If they withdraw, first of all, it does not mean that no one else will step in. So the big name events that are popular will likely have banks or oil companies or someone else with significant sums of money step in. It is those lesser events, those events out in the hinterland, which the tobacco industry is supporting for political purposes, that are in the tough spot. They are being addicted to tobacco industry money right now for political purposes. When they no longer serve the political purpose, the likelihood of that money continuing to flow will be greatly diminished.
Senator Forest: You have suggested improvements in the bill. Have these been submitted in writing as formal amendments to the bill?
Mr. LeGresley: No, they have not.
The Chair: I have been involved with the promotion of sports by tobacco companies for the last 40 years, and the industry has never put any pressure on anyone to smoke. Do you realize that $60 million is being put into sports and culture by the tobacco industry? Where will that money come from? Do you feel that other sponsors will replace it? Will the government have to pick it up and can they pick it up?
Mr. LeGresley: No, I do not think the government has to pick up that money. There is a variety of means by which we can achieve that objective. The objective, from the arts and sports side, is to have a secure source of funding at adequate levels. It is not to have tobacco industry funds per se. As I have said, I am not averse to seeing tobacco industry money flowing to these organizations, either directly, because the industry is willing to contribute it without the association of its brand names, or through funding sources derived from tobacco sales but with the industry's imagery edited out in the process of distributing it.
The Chair: One of the reasons they provide these funds is, of course, for tax rebates. If the government brought in legislation disallowing sponsorship by the tobacco industry, would that mean that they could not make that contribution because the government had so legislated and, therefore, they could not get a tax refund?
Mr. LeGresley: As I understand it, there is no bill before Parliament.
The Chair: We hear that it is close.
Mr. LeGresley: There would be no impediment to providing the tax refund for the tobacco company if they were making these contributions. It would be just the use of the tobacco brand and imagery that would be prohibited.
The Chair: Just to be clear, Mr. LeGresley, did you say that there are 6 million Canadians who are smoking?
Mr. LeGresley: That is the approximate number.
The Chair: Thank you for appearing before the committee and for your presentation, sir. If you have recommendations that you wish the committee to consider, please submit them.
Mr. LeGresley: We will.
The Chair: Our next witnesses are from the Canadian Cancer Society: Mr. Rob Cunningham, policy analyst, and Mr. Maurice Gingues, project manager.
We welcome you here this morning and we look forward to your presentation. Please proceed.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Gingues, Project Officer, Canadian Cancer Society: I want to thank you, Madam Chair, for inviting us to appear before the committee. Let me reintroduce Mr. Cunningham, whom you have already introduced, but who is also the author of a book that has just been released, entitled Smoking Mirrors: The Canadian Tobacco War. It is currently being translated. It is the only book that retraces the entire history of smoking as well as measures taken to control smoking in Canada, from the early days of New France up until the present time.
Before I begin, I would just like to say a few words about the Canadian Cancer Society. We represent 350,000 volunteers. Last year, our revenues were $78 million which, with the help of the Canada Cancer Foundation, enable us to fund cancer research across Canada every year.
The National Institute funds almost $36 million in cancer research. Research is an issue about which we will certainly have an opportunity to make further representations. But today, our focus is smoking.
The reason why the Canadian Cancer Society is working so hard to control smoking, is that approximately one third of all tobacco-related deaths are due to cancer. Of tobacco-related deaths caused by cancer, approximately 80 per cent are due to lung cancer. Lung cancer is deadly. Your chances of survival are approximately one in ten. It's really not very encouraging.
For the benefit of Senate committee members, I brought along with me today, in case you do not already have it, a Statistics Canada study on trends in mortality rates for tobacco-related cancer between 1950 and 1991.
I will leave this study with the committee. Looking at the trend among males, lung cancer is on the rise, despite the fact that other tobacco-related cancers have remained stable. However, it is especially among women that the trends are disturbing. Lung cancer is very clearly on the rise in that group. There are now more women dying of tobacco-related cancer than of breast cancer.
For the Canadian Cancer Society, this is an especially difficult problem. We have not yet found a way to prevent breast cancer. And yet for tobacco-related cancers, the solution is quite simple. One has only to stop using tobacco. That is the context in which we come before you this morning to make our representations.
I will now turn it over to Mr. Cunningham.
[English]
Mr. Rob Cunningham, Policy Analyst, Canadian Cancer Society: I would like to preface my comments by saluting Senator Haidasz for his long-standing work on this issue, dating back to his work as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and the historic hearings and report of the Isabelle committee, and his efforts throughout the years, both from a professional perspective and in the Senate, in sponsoring a number of bills and speaking on the floor. We have another bill here which is the product of his work.
You have our written brief. I will not repeat the contents of that brief. Bill S-5 addresses advertising, packaging and labelling, and product design. The Canadian Cancer Society, in commenting previously on the blueprint of the Department of Health and the Minister of Health, has advocated that legislation be adopted to control all aspects of the advertising, packaging and product design of tobacco products. We support a legislative response in this regard.
Our principal recommendation is that this committee amend the bill to provide a legislative framework for tobacco similar to what is found in the Hazardous Products Act or in the Food and Drugs Act here in Canada, or in the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act in the United States. Certainly tobacco is a hazardous product. Certainly nicotine is a drug. Nicotine is already regulated as a drug under the Food and Drugs Act, when it is found in gum or in a nicotine patch, but the more harmful tobacco products are excluded, and we need to change that. In fact, when we find nicotine in a pesticide, it is strictly regulated under the Pest Control Products Act, but when it is found in a product consumed by children today, it is virtually unregulated.
That is our principal recommendation. I know that the Senate has previously given second reading to a bill from Senator Haidasz to put tobacco under the Hazardous Products Act, and if we were to have the type of framework that Health Canada has proposed in its blueprint incorporated into Bill S-5, I think that would be an outstanding way for the Senate to advance this issue on the parliamentary agenda and to respond to the legislative void that presently exists following the Supreme Court of Canada's decision.
A number of senators have raised the question of sponsorship. Sponsorship is a form of tobacco advertising. There is much evidence that tobacco advertising increases overall demand, makes the social acceptability of cigarettes higher and makes the product more attractive to children.
Research in Canada demonstrates that children believe sponsorship advertising to be cigarette advertising. When we have a billboard for the Players' driver development program, we have a car driver who is the centre of attention being a winner. The message is: "If you smoke Players, you are a winner."
In the Craven A country music example, it is hard to tell whether the woman who is the centre of that attention is actually 18 or 19 years of age.
There are fashion shows sponsored by Matinée. Matinée is a brand targeted at women. Sponsorships are designed by tobacco companies to enhance the image of their products. Tobacco companies do not like to have people think about emphysema or death in connection with their products, so they do their best to create positive imagery. Sponsorships are chosen in correspondence with that imagery.
In the United States, the Cartoon Network is sponsoring cars, because they feel it is a great way to reach children. For decades car racing has also been sponsored by tobacco companies; yet they deny that they want to reach children. But regardless of their expressed intent, which we disagree with because we believe that they need children to perpetuate their future, the effect of advertising and sponsorship advertising is to reach children.
If sponsorship advertising had no effect, then why would tobacco companies do it? They are in the business of increasing sales. If it had no effect, why would they oppose a ban on sponsorship advertising? Because, without the ban, they could increase their profits by $60 million.
We know that profits are extremely important to corporations. If there was no effect on primary demand, corporations could increase their profits, assuming all the sponsorship money was to be disbursed as we are currently being led to believe.
Some countries have banned sponsorship advertising. In the U.S., the Food and Drug Administration, in an extensive review of this issue with submissions from all sides of this question, considered the evidence and concluded that sponsorship was a form of imagery that increased consumption. The United States has now banned sponsorship advertising, as has France, famous for its love of the arts, and as has New Zealand, famous for its love of sports.
The Supreme Court of Canada clearly provides the authority we need on this question. The Supreme Court of Canada has said that lifestyle advertising is a type of advertising that increases consumption and, therefore, banning it is justifiable. Sponsorship advertising is the best example of lifestyle advertising.
To those who question whether events will close for lack of sponsorship, our response is that the health of children must be the number one concern in our society. First of all, this is a health issue and that must be the priority.
It is worth noting that the Canadian Open for golf used to be sponsored by du Maurier; it is now sponsored by Bell Canada. The Virginia Slims International Tennis Tournament circuit is now sponsored by Corel, a company based here in the capital region. It was predicted that the Neptune Theatre in Halifax would not continue without sponsorship, but they get less than 1 per cent of their revenue from tobacco sponsorship. Will they close because they only have 99 per cent of their revenue?
The Alliance for Sponsorship Freedom, which is active in coordinating the opposition by sponsorship groups, is funded by the tobacco industry and is being operated by a public relations firm that does work for the tobacco industry.
My final point is that with respect to the packaging, labelling and advertising provisions, Bill S-5 does not deal with smokeless tobacco products such as chewing tobacco and snuff. That would be an area for improvement.
I welcome any questions you may have on my testimony or otherwise on tobacco issues.
Senator Haidasz: First, I should like to thank the witnesses appearing on behalf of the Canadian Cancer Society. We appreciate their coming and giving evidence before us. I am sure we will find it most useful.
As a preamble to my first question, may I say that my intention in sponsoring Bill S-5 was not to preempt the policy strategy of the Minister of Health. I actually put in a version of my bill before Madame Marleau on December 5 last, and deposited with the Parliament and the press, a strategy for fighting tobacco addiction.
This bill does not cover the whole tobacco problem in Canada. As a physician, I am mainly worried about the increase in sickness and mortality from tobacco-related diseases; therefore, I concentrated on the content of nicotine in smoking cigarettes and the cancerous tars, as well as carbon monoxide.
I come now to my first question. Besides talking about adding nicotine to the Hazardous Products Act, has the Canadian Cancer Society, in its representations to the Ministry of Health, also submitted any legally approved or checked amendments to the Hazardous Products Act in order to be successful? In other words, the ministry seems to be very careful in coming out with any legislation because they have had this bad luck with the advertising legislation. Is there any specific representation that the Cancer Society has made to the Ministry of Health or to the minister himself? Have you checked with legal experts with regard to the feasibility of an amendment to the Hazardous Products Act to include nicotine and cancerous tars?
Mr. Cunningham: The answer is yes. There are three ways theoretically that you can address the legislative void that presently exists. One is the Hazardous Products Act, one is the Food and Drugs Act and one is the avenue the government is prepared to go down, and that is a tobacco specific statute.
A number of parliamentarians have asked us similar questions. In fact, we have drafted a one-line bill, to take out the exemption in the Hazardous Products Act. It would be very simple from a legal perspective to have tobacco under the Hazardous Products Act. In fact, Parliament approved putting tobacco in the Hazardous Products Act in 1988. You will recall Bill C-204, senator. It is just that there is another little provision in there that says you cannot apply it, but that can be taken out and it can be addressed. The Hazardous Products Act does provide a comprehensive regulatory framework with respect to the importation, advertising and sale of designated restricted products.
Senator Haidasz: With that in mind, Mr. Cunningham, could you enlighten the members of this committee as to what happened a week or two ago that caused Mr. Dingwall to withdraw his tobacco-strategy-specific legislation?
Mr. Cunningham: Unfortunately, I am not in a position to give you the answer. Certainly, the media speculated on the factors behind the announcement. The minister has indicated that it is only rescheduled and that it will be introduced and announced prior to the House of Commons recess within a couple of weeks.
Senator Haidasz: Does your society know whether the contents of a smoking or burning cigarette, in other words the amount of nicotine and cancerous tars in a burning cigarette, are included in Mr. Dingwall's proposal?
Mr. Cunningham: We do not know the contents. Certainly, you can understand how keen we are to learn the contents of that, but we have been unsuccessful.
Senator Bosa: Mr. Cunningham, although it is outside the area of your testimony, I wonder whether you could comment on this. We have tried everything to stop young people from smoking. We have increased taxes; we have tried to restrict the advertising of tobacco products; there has been a great deal of publicity given to the ill effects of smoking; and we have done other things aimed at the same target; yet young people continue to start smoking. Has there ever been a psychological study on what drives people to start smoking?
I can use myself as an example. I was a heavy smoker at one time. I stopped smoking on January 3, 1969, at 5:30 in the afternoon. I used to smoke 50 cigarettes a day. I took my first few puffs at the age of 10 or 11, but I really started smoking as a teenager. At that time we would go to a movie and see, for instance, a beautiful young baroness with a cigarette holder. It was considered very elegant and attractive. As teenagers, we could not embrace the baroness so we embraced smoking.
In those days in the movies, all the role models for young men, whether pilots, detectives or whatever, would pull out a cigarette and start smoking after performing some heroic deed. That made smoking very attractive to young people, who wished to emulate their role models. However, that is not now the case. Actresses do not smoke, or at least it is not publicized. In addition, we have a plethora of information on the ill effects of smoking. Why do young people still start to smoke in the face of all of this information?
Mr. Cunningham: Senator, you have raised an issue that is of tremendous concern to us: namely, the frustratingly high levels of smoking among teenagers, both boys and girls. The good news is that the prevalence of teenage smoking is lower than it was in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Higher taxes, restrictions on the market, package warnings and educational interventions have contributed significantly to lower rates of smoking, but they remain frustratingly high.
You commented on how teenagers were not able to embrace a beautiful model or take the position of a hero and, as an alternative to that, they chose to smoke. Kids still do that. Adolescents are very insecure. Self-esteem is low. At a time when they are findings themselves, they may be very concerned about their appearance, social acceptability, status within their peer group and sex appeal. Tobacco companies respond to that and provide imagery that is attractive to teenagers.
The images that were around in the 1960s have been finessed somewhat. Sas Jordan promotes Belvedere cigarettes. Attractive women in a rock group promote Craven A cigarettes. Jacques Villeneuve, a tremendous hero, particularly in Quebec, but all across Canada and even outside Canada, is now associated with Rothman's.
Tobacco companies know very well how important imagery is, and therefore it is important that we eliminate it.
[Translation]
Senator Lavoie-Roux: I want to thank the Canadian Cancer Society. This is a good opportunity to thank them for all the work they're doing. You are the ones who started the whole debate on tobacco and we are seeing some quite positive results, even though we still have some way to go. But we have you alone to thank for what has been accomplished thus far.
Have you tried to measure the concrete impact of your efforts? Here in Parliament, smoking is prohibited everywhere. Some people cheat; but that's another story. Some senators even cheat. I see people by the door outside smoking. You practically need a shovel to remove the cigarette butts. They have put little ashtrays or boxes there where people can put their butts. Is that an incentive to smoke, rather than a disincentive? The air and the environment are protected, but have you tried to assess the impact of your efforts? Also, a lot of people complain about not even being able to smoke in their offices, even though they are not bothering anyone. Is it possible their frustration prompts them to smoke even more? Have you tried to assess such things?
Mr. Cunningham: The legislation prohibiting smoking in the workplace has two effects, one of which is to protect non-smokers from the harmful effects of passive smoking.
I am aware of some 20 studies carried out in North America and in Australia, showing that when people are prohibited from smoking in the workplace after having been able to smoke, their daily consumption of cigarettes drops. It prompts between 15 per cent and 22 per cent of smokers to stop smoking, because they just find it too hard.
So, it is a reason to stop smoking, and many people do stop consequently. The results vary from study to study.
We see information from manufacturers showing the opposite. That development is a very important issue from their perspective. Their documentation shows that this decreases total sales across the country.
Mr. Gingues: In terms of general health, from the standpoint of the employer, this means lower health costs, because we all know that people who do not smoke, or smoke less, are less subject to certain illnesses, such as colds, and less prone to absenteeism. All of that has been measured.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: There has been a lot of discussion about the impact of advertising on cigarette consumption and about how advertising must be cut back. Everyone agrees on that.
It is my impression that the result of such an approach is to isolate one factor in particular that prompts people to smoke. I think that is fine, but there are many other factors that prompt people to smoke, such as social and psychological factors. Why did women start smoking? I understand that during adolescence, teenage boys and girls want to experiment, but let's not talk about them for the time being. Let's forget about them. Do you have any studies showing that poverty, for example -- to use that particular factor, as there are many others one could mention -- is something that contributes to tobacco consumption?
Mr. Gingues: Well, I don't know exactly who gathered this information, but I think it was the Montreal Health and Social Services Board. In one area of the city, Saint-Henri, the rate of smoking is fairly high. It is over 40 per cent there, whereas in Westmount, it is close to 20 per cent.
There has always been that correlation: the more educated you are, the higher your income, and the less you smoke -- the reverse is also true. The lower your income and your level of education, the more you smoke, as a general rule.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: I'm raising this issue because I think it's rather a shame that the government and everyone are focussing so much on advertising, on the immediate environment, as factors that contribute to cigarette consumption. I am one of them. But there are also factors that no one ever talks about. We know for a fact that it's different with people who are experiencing psychological distress; there is a whole range of measures for people experiencing psychological distress.
They have a need to smoke. In that sense, what we should be doing is banning cigarettes. At this point, we are not banning cigarettes; we are trying to give people incentives not to smoke. With some people, smoking is the only crutch they have, and it allows them to continue functioning. Is the Canadian Cancer Society looking at that particular issue, one that might also eventually affect the kind of legislation or measures that governments put in place? I have no problem stopping smoking; I have never smoked. I'm not like Senator Losier-Cool.
In any case, it seems to me that is not something that gets a lot of attention.
Mr. Gingues: It is not something that gets a lot of attention partly because the results of campaigns targeting these populations indicate that statistically, they are generally not that effective. In human terms, of course, there is no doubt that someone who is experiencing distress and gets help through a smoking cessation program benefits from it on a personal level.
The problem we are currently facing, Senator Lavoie-Roux, is this: Do we not have a regulatory framework that can answer these questions? That is what we have asked the Minister of Health.
We have asked him to ensure that tobacco is no longer treated as an ordinary or normal product. To begin with, we must ensure that responsibility rests with manufacturers, rather than victims.
If it were possible to control advertising, increase taxes and implement controls on access to tobacco -- in other words, controls on retailers -- as well as educational programs offered in the schools and smoking cessation programs, that would certainly help. All of this would be funded out of the tobacco industry's profits, if possible, since they do amount to some $750 million a year. Our revenues are $78 million. The playing field is anything but level.
If that were to happen, we could offer programs to help these people and target them specifically. Otherwise, that just will not be possible. Naturally, the answer to your question is that if our economy were operating on the basis of full employment and the jobs available to people paid enough to allow them to survive, there is no doubt we would be facing much less acute problems in those groups. I know that we will not be able to solve these problems overnight.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: That is the message I would like the Cancer Society to get across. I realize that we are pursuing the full range of classic or traditional prevention measures and telling people that if you smoke, the consequences are a, b, c, and so forth, but you shouldn't smoke. I think it's important that governments also be more conscious of the fact that if we really want to get people to stop smoking, we have to be active on several different fronts.
Mr. Gingues: If I could just make one comment, I think most governments and certainly the federal government would agree with that, and that they want to look at the broad spectrum of health determinants.
However, there is the danger that we will end up throwing out the baby with the bath water. We could end up going to the opposite extreme and focusing only on that, when we already know that will not yield good results overall. We agree with you in that respect. This is not an easy problem to deal with. I don't know whether that really answers your question or not.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: I just wanted to be sure that you were giving this some thought, in addition to all that has been said this morning. You can change the focus, include some things or not include them.
I have two final questions. One notes in the statistics an increase in tobacco consumption, particularly among women. That is of particular concern to us. Have you been able to identify the reasons for that increase? Is it because women want to be like men? I don't think so.
Do you feel the current bill is satisfactory? You have made a great many recommendations. It seems to me they are more appropriate for a major piece of legislation. Are you satisfied with the bill to decrease nicotine content?
Mr. Gingues: The reason why women smoke more is directly related to marketing efforts on the part of the tobacco industry. There is no doubt about that. It is naturally associated with the women's equality movement. They have definitely tried to take advantage of that. Women have a harder time beating a tobacco addiction than do men. We do not really understand this phenomenon, nor do we know whether it is physiological or not.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Have any studies been done on this?
Mr. Gingues: Yes.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Medical or physiological studies?
Mr. Gingues: Studies of all kinds are being carried out. The last figure I heard on the number of smoking studies was between 20,000 and 30,000. They are being done all over. At the Canadian Cancer Society, the National Cancer Research Institute, we now have a department that looks at behaviour. Those are exactly the kinds of questions we are exploring with respect to tobacco. We cannot study everything at the same time. If that answers your question, perhaps Mr. Cunningham could tackle the second one.
Mr. Cunningham: Our recommendation is that the bill be improved in order to grant more authority to control the actual product, advertising and packaging.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: In other words, Bill S-5 should be improved.
Mr. Cunningham: Yes. Our recommendations in that respect are presented in our written submission.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Yes, I saw quite a few of them. You have made so many recommendations that they would probably more appropriately apply to a more comprehensive bill.
Mr. Cunningham: They apply to Bill S-5. Some provisions should be amended. We could even write the amendments, if you like.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: That would be most appreciated.
[English]
The Chair: Senator Lavoie-Roux made the point that other things cause people to smoke. I have had the opportunity over the past few years to do some research on alcohol and drug abuse. I have been to the institution and attended some of the sessions, and I found that 98 per cent of those people smoked and drank coffee continually. That was their crutch, I suppose. They had to give up alcohol and drugs, so they went on to the next best thing, coffee and cigarettes. You could cut the air in the room sometimes.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Madam Chair, what do you use as a crutch?
The Chair: I do not smoke.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: You do not drink?
The Chair: No. I have people and friendships.
Senator Forest: I certainly agree with my colleague's statement about poverty and health and tobacco use. Perhaps all of that needs to be dealt with in Mr. Dingwall's bill. However, coming back to Bill S-5, and to Senator Bosa's comments about the images used in advertising, those images may have become subtle and more subliminal, but they are quite effective.
I have had quite a bit to do with high school and university kids. There is much more peer pressure exerted on kids today. They may not be looking at the beautiful woman on the screen as much as they are looking at the kid next door. They want to be accepted. I know that your advertising budget is not great, but have you thought of trying to incorporate that angle of peer pressure in the advertising you do, showing healthful groups of young kids who do not smoke?
Mr. Cunningham: Certainly peer pressure is an important factor contributing to smoking by teenagers. Educational programs exist to help teenagers respond to peer pressure; but that being said, tobacco companies also know that peer pressure is important. They invent part of it in marketing laboratories. Why is there peer pressure to smoke, but not peer pressure to eat carrots every day? There is a reason for that. There are internal documents where they specifically attempt to make Players, for example, relevant and acceptable within the peer group of adolescent boys. That is how they are aware of that concern.
Senator Forest: Our programming in the schools tries to do the opposite, to respond to peer pressure by having healthful images.
Mr. Cunningham: We can respond to that in a number of ways. Some people, despite peer pressure, do not smoke. They might not smoke because of health concerns, because of family influence, because of a successful educational program, or because it is too expensive to smoke. There are a number of factors that can affect peer pressure, including educational interventions.
[Translation]
Mr. Guingues: If I could just add one further point, the Canadian Cancer Society does free door-to-door advertising that is allowed under CRTC regulations. The ads are on at eleven o'clock at night. Our budgets for developing television advertising are ridiculously low. They are practically non-existent. The people that work with us lose their shirts every time. The fact is there is a disparity between the tobacco industry's means and those of organizations such as ours, that are not only addressing tobacco-related issues. There are other cancer programs as well. I just wanted to make that point
[English]
Mr. Cunningham: Madam Chair, may I make two brief points on some early testimony?
I commented about revenues from Neptune Theatre. The source of that information was jointly prepared by the Canadian Conference of the Arts.
With respect to the concerns raised about lower-income Canadians with a higher rate of smoking, we know that people with lower incomes have lower educational levels, and the lack of education may be an important explanatory factor for higher smoking rates. We know that as people's education increases, their smoking decreases.
The Chair: Thank you for your presentation this morning. It is very much appreciated.
The committee adjourned.