Ms. Christine Mirus, Private Citizen

Mr. George Ackerman, Private Citizen

Mr. David Rubenfeld, Private Citizen

Ms. Pauline Harder, 7-11 Stores

Mr. Don Toyne, MACS Convenience Stores

Ms. Liz Ostiguay, Canadian Cancer Society

Mr. Hans Bhangu, Pal's Supermarket

Ms. Glennys Fairbairn, Fairbairns Foods

Dr. William Libich, Private Citizen

Bill 36–The Drinking Water Safety Act

Madam Vice-Chairperson: Will the Standing Committee on Law Amendments please come to order? I know it is very warm in here tonight and hopefully we can proceed as orderly and expeditiously as possible.

This evening the committee will be considering the following bills: Bill 31, The Medical Amendment (Physician Profiles and Miscellaneous Amendments); Bill 36, The Drinking Water Safety Act; Bill 37, The Non-Smokers Health Protection Amendment Act.

We have presenters who have registered to make public presentations on all three bills: 31, 36 and 37. It is the custom to hear public presentations before consideration of bills. Could I ask those persons in attendance who are speaking in French please to make themselves known to the clerk, either at the front here or at the table at the back preferably, of the committee if you have not already done so. I would also ask people speaking in French to be conscious that we have translators and we would request that you speak more slowly than usual to accommodate translation services.

Is it the will of the committee to hear public presentations on the bills and, if yes, in what order do you wish to hear the presenters?

Hon. MaryAnn Mihychuk (Minister of Industry, Trade and Mines): Madam Chairperson, I would suggest that the committee sit until we complete all public hearings, that we set a time limit of 10 minutes for presentations and 5 minutes for questions and answers, and that our normal procedure for taking out-of-town guests be slightly amended for personal considerations and that Aaron Yanofsky, George Ackerman and Barbara St. Laurent present first for personal reasons of health and age. Then we go to out-of-town guests or what is considered normal procedure.

Madam Vice-Chairperson: Okay, I will deal with each of those issues, one at a time. We are going to hear all the presentations for all the bills first. We are going to have the presenters' time allotment be 10 minutes for presentation and 5 minutes for questions. We are going to have three presenters move up the order, who are speaking on Bill 37, because of health consideration. We are going to, after hearing those three presenters, hear the French presenters and then hear all the out-of-town presenters for the bills. Is that an agreement? [Agreed]

I will now read through the list of presenters in the order that they will be presenting, starting with the three individuals who have been moved to the top of the list due to health reasons, and then following with the out-of-town presenters. We will hear from George Ackerman, Barbara St. Laurent, Aaron Yanofsky. Then the out of town presenters will be, on Bill 31–excuse me–Following that will be the French presentation by Fern and Ginette Piche. Then on Bill 31, Laurie Potovsky-Beachell, Pauline Harder, Luc Martial, Bryan Walton, Jim Waters, Ida Miller, Cynthia Callard and Neil Collishaw, Joe Brunner, Al Suggitt and Lynn Greaves.

I will now read the list of the remaining presenters who are from the city of Winnipeg, starting with Bill 31. Lissa Donner, Bill Pope, Christine and Tom Mirus.

Bill 36, Paul Moist.

Bill 37, Shelly Wiseman, Noel Bernier, Liz Ostiguay, Jaroslaw Barwinsky, Teresita Tena, John Tropak, Arlene Draffen Jones, Jerry Medina, Jeff Kendel, Young Park, Sanjiv Kaushal, Margaret Bernhardt-Lowdon, Fred Meinzer, Hans Bhangu, Myron Sleeva, Bruce Thompson, Dr. Garey Mazowita, Murray Gibson, David Scott, Shannon Pidlubny, David Rubenfeld, Sharon Boonov, Kenneth Emberley and Sanjiv Kaushal.

If I have not read your name, and you wish to make a presentation, you can register with the clerk's table at the back of the room.

How does the committee wish to proceed in dealing with presenters who are not in attendance today, but have had their names called? Shall the names be dropped to the bottom of the list? [Agreed] Shall the names be dropped from the list after being called twice? [Agreed]

As a courtesy to persons waiting to give a presentation, did the committee wish to indicate how late it wishes to sit this evening? [interjection] That is correct. We agreed to that earlier, until all the presentations are done.

I would like to inform the committee that written submissions have been received from Gloria D'Sorcy, Consumers' Association of Canada, Manitoba Chapter, for Bill 31. Catherine S. King, for Bill 37, Howard Maslove, Dominion News and Gifts for Bill 37, and Ida Miller for Bill 37, who is listed as No. 7 on the presenters' list. They have asked that their briefs be included as written submissions to appear in the committee transcript for this meeting. Copies of these briefs have been made available to committee members and were distributed at the start of the meeting.

We have also had submitted just now another written presentation from Valour Convenience Store, Mr. and Mrs. Jerry Medina for Bill 37. Does the committee grant its consent to have these written submissions appear in the committee transcript for the meeting? [Agreed]

Madam Vice-Chairperson: We will proceed now with the first presenter, Mr. George Ackerman, on Bill 37.

Mr. George Ackerman (Private Citizen): Madam Chairperson and the committee. My name is George Ackerman and I am a laryngectomy. I was laryngectomized in 1984 and am one of the very fortunate ones. I am also the past president of the International Association of Laryngectomies. There are approximately 53 000 laryngectomies in North America, 93 percent of these people smoke and they all started at a very young age.

We have an extremely valuable commodity within our country and in our province and that is our youth. We must do everything in our power to get to these people, not to subject them to the trials and strains that I went through as a laryngectomy. They do not make those kids again. One out of every two kids who smoke will die prematurely from this. In North America this year there will be roughly 250 000 people die prematurely from smoke-related illnesses.

* (19:10)

Anything that we can do to stop this carnage must be done. We must look after our people. We must look after the youth of our province and the youth of our country. I urge you all to seriously consider passing this bill because it is important, very, very important that we cut out this needless carnage on the youth of our country.

Thank you very much.

Madam Vice-Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Ackerman.

Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr. Ackerman, and to you and to all the presenters. I want to thank all presenters who are coming out today. There is such a large group of people who are speaking that I am going to limit my comments because we want to hear from all of you. Thank you very much for your presentation. It is very much appreciated, and to all the presenters.

Mr. Ackerman: Thank you.

Hon. Tim Sale (Minister of Family Services and Housing): I echo my colleague's comments, but George, your son and my son played soccer together for a lot of years. That was when Steve was, I would guess, about 12 or maybe a little older than that, 15 maybe, that you got cancer. I know that for your struggles and the witness you have had in the community to fight this, that has been very important to your kids and our kids because there are none of them who are smokers. I can tell you that there were many discussions on the edge of the soccer field that said that is never going to happen to me. So I want to thank you personally for that witness.

Mr. Ackerman: Just as an aside, if I may, Madam Chairperson, I devoted most of my life since my laryngectomy in trying to talk to school kids throughout this province. In the last 18 years, I probably spoke to 30 000 throughout Manitoba. Hopefully in some small way this did help. Thank you again.

Madam Vice-Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Ackerman. The next presenters are Gerald and Barbara St. Laurent.

Mr. Gerald St. Laurent (Private Citizen): Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I have I think what is probably a petition that was passed around. It says: Gary Doer, Premier, do not kill our corner stores. Well, the amount of time I am going to take here is the amount of time it takes to get addicted to cigarettes. There is another thing here: Find a better way to butt out the youth smoking. Well, I have a good suggestion. Quit selling it. That is one thing.

I have seven different items I want to say here. First of all, according to all this, is money more important than our young people? I do not think so. I say we have to protect our young children, get them away from the possibilities of looking at cigarette packages on shelves beside the candies and the chocolate bars. Hide it. If you cannot take it away, at least hide it. Do not let them be exposed to it because the power of suggestion, I can guarantee if I said I am going to yawn real good, I bet you I will get one person who is going to yawn. That is because of the power of suggestion. I do not see anybody yawning yet, so I guess I better rephrase that.

Anyway, my health from smoking, I smoked for 42 years. I started when I was about 15 years of age. That was the thing to do then in the fifties. Cigarettes were advertised in the paper and in the magazines, bulletin boards and it was the thing to do. I got hooked on my first cigarette. That is why I know. I am speaking from experience. Because I got hooked on cigarettes, I have had a minor stroke which I am glad I have no side effects from. I have poor circulation down my left side. I have had three tumours in my bladder directly from smoking and they were all at the first stages of cancer. I beat that too.

Chronic bronchitis, if I walk into a place where there is cigarette smoke, forget it. I choke. I cough. I take my puffer and I run the heck outside, get some fresh air. Shortness of breath, the same thing. It is all from smoking when I was younger and seeing it was the thing to do. Get it off the shelves. As far as I am concerned, smoke belongs in a wood stove, not in our lungs. I thoroughly believe that. Remove from visual contact all tobacco products. Save our young people from all of the above. Get rid of it.

Now I have one strong statement here. I might get a few comments on it, but if a corner store needs to display tobacco products to sell the same of that to young people so they can be tempted to buy cigarettes, smokes, as far as I am concerned they should be charged with attempted murder. That is how I feel, because that is what they are doing. They are trying to kill our young people. Get it off the market. Get it off the shelves. Do not let the kids see it.

That is all I have to say. My wife has something to say here now.

Mrs. Barbara St. Laurent (Private Citizen): Mine is not quite as long, as he has said all of what I was going to say.

Tobacco products on display in stores is the same as advertising, as far as I am concerned. Our young people should not be subject to this deadly product. If the tobacco products were taken off the shelves when I was in my teens, I may not be in this condition that I am in today. Tobacco was a deadly drug, and I know I have been suffering with the illness for 10 years now.

I guess that was the worst decision of my life to have ever smoked. Now I feel it is not so much for the adults, it is for the children. If I can help but one child not to smoke, that would be something I think, for me anyway.

Thank you very much for listening to me and good evening.

Madam Vice-Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation, Gerald and Barbara.

Mr. St. Laurent: Thank you for your interest.

Madam Vice-Chairperson: The next presenter is Aaron Yanofsky, the vice-president of Manitoba Youth for Clean Air.

Mr. Aaron Yanofsky (Vice-President, Manitoba Youth for Clean Air): May I start? Good evening, Chairperson, committee members, ladies, gentlemen and children. Thank you for allowing me to speak.

My name is Aaron Yanofsky and I am 13 years old. I am going into Grade 8 at H.C. Avery Middle School. I am here today as vice-president of Manitoba Youth for Clean Air. Manitoba Youth for Clean Air is a young group with a membership of close to 2000 young Manitobans all across Manitoba who are very concerned about kids smoking and the very harmful effects of smoking and second-hand smoke on children and their families in Manitoba.

Manitoba Youth for Clean Air cares about the health, well-being and safety of all young people and adults in Manitoba. We recently celebrated World No Tobacco Day events on May 25 at Portage Place shopping center, May 26 at the Children's Hospital Teddy Bear's Picnic at Assiniboine Park, and May 31 at CanWest Global Park. The theme this year was Tobacco Free Sports – Play it Clean. In support of World No Tobacco Day, the Winnipeg Goldeyes' outdoor ballpark was completely smoke-free and they promoted healthy smoke-free lifestyle messages for young and old alike. Manitoba Youth for Clean Air presented a banner on field with over 1000 names to ban second-hand smoke in all public places in Manitoba.

In the past, Manitoba Youth for Clean Air members have gone to City Council to request a smoking ban in all public places in Winnipeg, especially where children are allowed to go. Manitoba Youth for Clean Air is now also very concerned about children being discriminated against and banned from certain restaurants and bowling alleys.

* (19:20)

This issue to ban the display and advertising of cigarettes in places where children are allowed is a no-brainer. When I am looking around in many retail stores, waiting in line and/or paying for let us say some ice cream and candy, most of the time I see all types of cigarettes displayed, such as Players, and I often see people buying them right in front of my face. It almost tempts me to experiment and think about trying it one time because it seems okay and normal for everyone to buy them in the stores all the time near me.

I know that cigarettes are very unhealthy, but as I get into high school I wonder about some of my friends and I being tempted to smoke because of us seeing cigarettes all over the place. If children keep seeing cigarettes in public places, such as stores, and adults and teens smoking and giving smokes to each other in schoolyards and community centre fields, sports diamonds, they will get the wrong message over and over and be tempted to try.

In a way, they are encouraged to try cigarettes sooner or later. You come into some stores and see cigarettes being displayed and leave seeing cigarettes being shown. This tells me and other kids that it is sort of all right to smoke. When cigarettes are within sight, it is in my mind to think about trying it at one time.

Bill 37 must go through, and even if it helps prevent few teens from smoking it is well worth it. I am sure that by passing Bill 37 the well-being and future of kids like me in Manitoba will be safer and healthier. Bill 37 is an important step for our province to help prevent teens from starting and continuing to smoke. I hope you make the healthy and wise decision by making Bill 37 go through as soon as possible.

Finally, on behalf of Manitoba Youth for Clean Air, I really hope in the very near future our Government will continue its steps to eventually make all Manitoba public places smoke-free and our province one of the healthiest for all Manitobans. Thank you, committee members, for your time listening to me.

Madam Vice-Chairperson: Thank you, Aaron, and all of your group for your presentation.

Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Thank you, Aaron, and congratulations to all of you. I think it is always wonderful to see young people decide that an issue is really important to you and to take on that issue and advocate for it.

I have always said it is really important for us to be listening to our youth. I congratulate you on that effort to rally the troops and to do the work you have done.

I have a question to ask you. Would you be interested in seeing no smoking allowed in any public place?

Mr. Yanofsky: Yes.

Mrs. Driedger: Thank you.

Madam Vice-Chairperson: No further questions? Thank you very much for your presentation.

The next presenters will be Fern and Ginette Piche.

I want to ask the Committee if there is leave to hear David Rubenfeld, one more young person from that group, who wishes to speak? [Agreed] David, you can proceed with your presentation.

Mr. David Rubenfeld (Private Citizen): Good evening. My name is David Rubenfeld, and I am 11 years old and in Grade 7. I am here to tell you why we should go through with Bill 37, the Non-Smokers Health Protection Amendment Act. Just imagine your kids coming home and saying, hey, Mom and Dad, I was at the corner store with my friend, and we saw that they had cigarettes showing. Does that mean it is okay to smoke? Do you want your kids or any kids to think it is okay to smoke, or would you prefer that your kids are not reminded of cigarettes and will not be thinking about smoking? Think, if cigarettes are out of sight, then they are out of our minds.

In the past, I have had members of my family die from smoking. Therefore, I did not have a chance to know them. I say go forth with Bill 37 and then kids like me will not be tempted to smoke because we will not be looking at cigarettes. I think if we cannot ban smoking in all public places, we can at least hide our cigarettes. I think that the next step for our City and Province is to ban smoking from all school properties. This is a good step for Winnipeg and Manitoba, but we can do more. So, help Winnipeg and Manitoba and help the children from being influenced by cigarettes. Pass this bill for the sake of the children. Thank you.

Madam Vice-Chairperson: Thank you, David, for your presentation.

The next presenters are Fern and Ginette Piche. I will call the names again of Fern and Ginette Piche. They are not in attendance, so their names will be dropped to the bottom of the list.

Madam Vice-Chairperson: We will now proceed back to presenters on Bill 31. The first presenter is Laurie Potovsky-Beachell. You can proceed when you are ready.

Ms. Laurie Potovsky-Beachell (Coalition for Access to Physician Profiles): Thank you. Good evening, Madam Chair, honourable ministers, members of the committee. I am here to represent the Coalition for Access to Physician Profiles. Our coalition was formed in 2000. We represent a coalition of consumer, disability, labour and women's health groups. We are pleased to be here today to speak in support of Bill 31, this legislation.

In January 2001, we released the results of our research into practices in Manitoba and other jurisdictions and called on the Government of Manitoba to enact physician profiles here in Manitoba. At that time, we called for physician profiles which included the following information: education and training, post-graduate training and certification, employment history, malpractice information, discipline or censure by the College of Physicians and Surgeons and criminal convictions.

We believe that many Manitobans share our concern for greater accountability and transparency in the health care system. Indeed, in each case where this has been an issue of public discussion, the public demands have gone further than what we have articulated. One necessary step on this road will be to provide health care consumers with information about the practice histories of their physicians. This will help health care consumers and others, such as family members acting on their behalf, to take greater responsibility for their own health care and to have more information to help them make the best decisions possible.

Bill 31 is consistent with the recommendations contained in the recent Pediatric Cardiac Surgery Inquest report. Justice Murray Sinclair concluded that patients have the right to information about a surgeon's experience in performing a particular procedure as well as the experience of the hospital and/or surgical team. It is also consistent with the recommendations of the 1994 report of the Manitoba Law Reform Commission regulating professions and occupations, which recommended that self-governing bodies be required to reveal practitioners' disciplinary records for at least the three years preceding a request for this information.

The Law Reform Commission took a sweeping look at these issues and concluded that all aspects of the operating of self-governing bodies should be governed by the principle of openness and accountability to the provincial government and to the people of Manitoba. In May 2001, the report of the Review and Implementation Committee for the report of the Manitoba Pediatric Cardiac Surgery Inquest, chaired by Paul Thomas, was released. That report recommended that the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba work with Manitoba Health and other interested groups to develop a system of physician profiles describing the education, experience, training, awards, disciplinary history and other information deemed relevant for each physician practising in Manitoba.

* (19:30)

In the context and format for physician profiles, a balance must be found between the public's right to know and easy access to information with the right of physicians to a measure of privacy and to an accurate balanced and fair interpretation of their history of medical practice. While we are pleased with this initiative, we are concerned that the bill amend section 19 of The Medical Act to enable rather than require the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba to implement physician profiles.

While we commend the college for its co-operation to date, we remain concerned that this could change at a later date. We note that the bill does amend section 19 to give the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the authority to make the necessary regulations if the college does not comply with a ministerial request to make, amend or repeal a regulation about physician profiles. We believe that the public interest would be better protected by simply requiring the college to create and disseminate physician profiles.

We are also concerned that the bill does not specify that the profiles should be easily and readily accessible to the public through a variety of means. Meaningful access requires that the profiles be available in a format accessible to the user, whether that is by mail or the Internet, in braille or large type. The physician profiles are only as good as the information which they contain. Currently, physicians are required under the act to report cases where they believe that a physician is impaired, not where she or he is not competent.

While the college's code of practice has been amended to encourage reporting where competency is a concern, we note that this code has been created by the college's governing body and may be changed at any time. We believe that this bill should contain a requirement that physicians report their concerns about the professional competence of another physician to the college for investigation. In Manitoba, ordinary citizens who believe that a child may be in need of care or protection are required to report this to the appropriate child welfare authorities. Why would we apply a lower standard to professionals?

In summary, we commend the Government for introducing Bill 31 at this time. We will continue to be actively involved in the implementation of physician profiles and to work for other improvements to the health care system, which we believe will improve the quality of health provided to Manitobans.

Mr. Chairperson: Are there any questions?

Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): One question, in your meetings with the group, did you have any discussion about whether or not mortality rates should be included?

Ms. Potovsky-Beachnell: Not to my recollection, no.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. The next out-of-town presenter is Christine Mirus. Is Christine Mirus here? Please, take the podium.

Ms. Christine Miris (Private Citizen): Good evening, members of the committee. My name is Christine Mirus, and I am here to talk about–

Mr. Chairperson: Excuse me for interrupting, but do you have a written presentation?

Ms. Mirus: Yes, I do.

Mr. Chairperson: Could you give it to the page? We will distribute it. Please, proceed.

Ms. Miris: Okay. I would like to talk briefly about the need for Manitoba to report mortality rates for cardiac surgeons in Manitoba as part of physicians' profiles. This approach is standard in a number of jurisdictions, including New York. It has made quite a difference in New York with considerable decreases in mortality rates for cardiac surgeons.

I table today's information from Ontario and the cardiac care network in Ontario, which reports such data for each hospital and each physician. This is an alternative approach. In any case, I would advocate for the inclusion of cardiac mortality rates for cardiac surgery as part of physicians' profiles. My name is Christine Mirus. I was the first heart transplant in Manitoba and, hopefully, not the last. Thank you very much. If you have any questions, if you can direct them to my husband, I have a slight hearing problem, and he will be happy to answer for you.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation.

Mr. Glen Cummings (Ste. Rose): Thank you for your presentation and bringing this to our attention. I certainly appreciate you making the effort to come here and have some input on this because, from this side of the table, when we look at legislation, we always look at whether it is enabling or requires certain actions. You have raised some legitimate questions in that respect. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairperson: The next out-of-town presenters are on Bill 37, beginning with Pauline Harder, 7-Eleven stores. Is Pauline Harder in the room? Please proceed.

Ms. Pauline Harder (7-Eleven Stores) : Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. It was originally Len McGeouch, our National Loss Prevention Manager for 7-Elevens, intention to be here personally. However, he just got back from vacation on August 6 and therefore could not make travel arrangements. My name is Pauline Harder. I am the market sales manager for 7-Eleven for Manitoba and Northwestern Ontario. Hopefully, the following information will assist the standing committee on law.

The committee should be aware that 7-Eleven Canada supports the general intent and overall substance as proposed by Bill 37, but strongly urges that reference to the concealment of tobacco products in retail stores be deleted, a section within Bill 37 that would require substantial changes to the configuration of all convenience stores, gas bars and other establishments to which the public have access.

Tobacco products are, in most cases, housed near the busiest part of the store, adjacent to the cash registers, computers, links to gasoline pumps and other important equipment for security reasons. The logistical, technical, human resource and technological implications of making substantial changes to these parts of the store are significant relative to the size and economic realities of these establishments.

If the law contains provisions that preclude the display of tobacco, a legal product, not only are retailers faced with the cost of retrofit in the areas as described, but also the loss of income that the display of this product generates. The committee should be aware that displays are income generated for small business and are not isolated to tobacco displays. Other manufacturers pay display allowances to ensure their products are prominently displayed. The inclusion of such a section in the law would assume that youth will come to a retailer that sells tobacco products and the display would create an impulse to purchase tobacco.

* (19:40)

The fact that it is against the law for retailers to sell this product to youth seems to have been forgotten. 7-Eleven Canada, as well as other retailers, are very proud of the internal programs that they have created to educate and train employees regarding the responsibilities that go along with selling tobacco products. 7-Eleven has been involved in educating our employees prior to legislation being enacted either federally or provincially as a part of our social responsibility to youth. 7-Eleven created awareness programs. Our first was named Come of Age. An additional rededication of new awareness programs we have named ID Zone for examples of the importance placed on this issue.

Our hundreds of employees in Manitoba at our 49 stores are trained and retrained in these programs. There is no economic benefit for our employees to sell tobacco products to youth. Our stores are corporately owned and our employees are paid hourly or on a salary basis. Additionally, our employees are aware that any sales of tobacco to a young person would put their employment in jeopardy, a significant price to pay for any deviation from the law and our policies and procedures.

As part of these programs, we post signs in our stores and our employees are issued buttons that advertise that we ask for identification from customers who appear to be 25 years of age or younger. We follow up by having shopping services check that our employees are adhering to the law and our policies and procedures. 7-Eleven Canada funds these programs to not only abide by the law, but to our own social responsibilities in the neighbourhoods we serve. We conduct business in Manitoba and the rest of Canada with the purpose of serving our customers in a convenient efficient manner by providing them with the products they want to buy. 7-Eleven Canada is not in the business of selling tobacco products to the youth of the neighbourhoods we serve.

7-Eleven Canada is prepared to publicly and enthusiastically support Bill 37 if references to the tobacco products being hidden are removed. If these references are not changed, we will strongly and aggressively oppose the legislation. Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation.

Hon. MaryAnn Mihychuk (Minister of Industry, Trade and Mines): I have a question in terms of logistics. Having in my past had the opportunity to be an employee of 7-Eleven, for which I appreciated that chance and enjoyed it very much, can you tell me is it possible to move the display of cigarettes to just under the counter area without incurring a great deal of renovation costs?

Ms. Harder: We have in a lot of our locations, not most of them, but we have what is known as back walls of cigarettes, so we have taken a lot of necessary precautions to move them to the back walls. I want to reiterate that our counter displays do generate a lot of money for us.

Ms. Mihychuk: Which location did you work at, by the way?

Ms. Harder: St. Anne's Road.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. The next out-of-town presenter is Luc Martial, representing NACDA, National Convenience Store Distributors Association. Please proceed.

Mr. Luc Martial (NACDA, National Convenience Store Distributors Association): Thank you. I am aware that there is a time limit, so if I read a little bit faster, it is just because I had planned on maybe 15 minutes.

I would like to begin by taking this opportunity to thank the Government of Manitoba, and specifically the members of this Standing Committee, for inviting the National Association of Convenience Store Distributors. Mr. Luc Dumulong, the president of the association, was slated to present this evening but was unavoidably detained. He has asked that I extend to you his sincere apologies and reconfirms his organization's interest in working with the Government of Manitoba towards good public policy development on tobacco.

Mr. Dumulong further asked if I could attend today's meeting and reiterate those concerns addressed in the organization's April 19 submission on the proposed amendments. While not an expert in the field of retailing or distribution, I have been assisting NACDA over this past year on the broader issues surrounding tobacco control. To perhaps lend insight and credibility to my presence here today, I would like to briefly provide the committee members with an overview of my professional background and, more importantly, my long-standing commitment to tobacco control.

My name is Luc Martial, as you know, and I have endeavoured in the tobacco and health field in Canada over the past 12 years. At the forefront of every major national tobacco control initiative this past decade, I have successfully laboured as a policy analyst with the Non-Smokers' Rights Association of Canada, as a data specialist and communications coordinator with the Canadian Council on Smoking and Health. I have been director with the National Clearinghouse on Tobacco and Health, a program that is funded by every government in Canada, including Manitoba. I have been the executive director of the Canadian Council for Tobacco Control and spent two years working for the federal government within the Office of Research, Surveillance and Evaluation and the Office of Policy and Planning at the Tobacco Control Programme within Health Canada.

My commitment as a tobacco control advocate in Canada has benefited from having worked within anti-tobacco groups, the national health community and government. A little over a year ago, I resigned my posting within Health Canada to more actively pursue responsible public health policies on tobacco. I currently work as an independent consultant assisting legitimate stakeholders within the community in working productively with their Government in developing responsible tobacco control initiatives.

While my primary task here today is to provide this committee with NACDA's concern regarding the proposed amendments to the Non-Smokers Health Protection Act, I would certainly welcome broader discussion regarding tobacco control in Canada.

Now, who is NACDA? The National Association of Convenience Store Distributors was founded in Winnipeg in 1955. Representing independent and corporate wholesale distributors across Canada, NACDA members handle a variety of products that include confectionery, groceries, tobacco, health and beauty products, beverages, wine, beer, paper goods, food services, produce and fresh meats.

Current NACDA membership consists of over 100 distribution outlets servicing more than 40 000 retailers throughout this country. Nationally, NACDA members distribute over 74 percent of all tobacco products sold in Canada. Within the province of Manitoba, NACDA members are full service wholesale distributors servicing more than 700 retail outlets. While it is often easy to simplify corporate involvement as servicing a community, the fact remains that our members are very much themselves members of your community.

While previous consultation on the proposed amendments have left much to be desired, it is NACDA's hope that from this point forward our business members, your community members, will be provided with an opportunity to develop an effective working relationship with their Government. It is NACDA's belief that the currently proposed amendments respond more so to the private agendas of a few outside special interest groups and less so to the broader provincial community stakeholders which elected this Government.

For the record, NACDA recognizes the legitimacy of the tobacco and health issue and applauds all responsible initiatives aimed at educating and informing consumers as to the risk associated with any consumer product. In terms of Manitoba's current efforts, interestingly enough, the focus of the multi-year tobacco control strategy announced by the provincial Health Minister earlier this year speaks largely to NACDA's long-standing interest and commitment to tobacco control. NACDA does not promote smoking and strongly encourages education aimed at young people.

Despite our support of the comprehensive approach of tobacco control in Manitoba, we remain greatly concerned with the proposed legislative amendments which would prohibit the display of tobacco products in retail outlets where minors are allowed, essentially corner stores. This concern results largely from the absence of the policy and research foundation necessary for any government to justify such intrusive action. If the research warranting such action has been undertaken by the Government and if viable policy alternatives have been effectively considered and explored these have never been communicated to business community stakeholders within Manitoba.

While the proposed initiative draws upon the popular denormalization agenda of special interest groups outside of Manitoba and further builds upon its mention within the national tobacco strategy, the federal government has long contested the merits of industry denormalization activities. In fact, Canada's $480-million, five-year, federal tobacco control strategy specifically declined to identify denormalization as a strategic goal. My professional experience would lead me to believe that such a decision materialized from both legal and social concerns of using denormalization.

* (19:50)

In terms of specific concerns regarding the proposed initiative, we would like to address some of the issues raised in the April submission.

Our concerns regarding good public policy development standards: The Non-Smokers Health Protection Act provides the Minister of Health (Mr. Chomiak) with the authority to act once the necessary research and policy foundation is in place. To the best of our knowledge this foundation has yet to be developed. Despite its good intentions, the Government's strong commitment to tobacco control does not in any way dispense the department from being thorough and accountable in its approach.

Aside from this necessary research and policy foundation, the Manitoba Health Department has yet to present any clear expectations regarding the proposed measures. Without any measurement tools or pre-established measurable results, the present initiative should not be allowed to move forward. Moving forward would be tantamount to irresponsible public policy development. The proposed amendment initiative is heavily inspired from Saskatchewan's Bill 56. Unfortunately, members of the business community in Saskatchewan were equally approached very much as an afterthought and the consultation mechanisms in place at that time provided no true opportunity for those stakeholders to share their expertise with government and explore all policy options.

While Saskatchewan chose to advance, nonetheless, with public policy with little regard to meaningful dialogue with key segments of its community, it is our hope that Manitoba will not blindly follow suit.

Our concerns regarding meaningful consultation with our Government: Legitimate business community stakeholders in Manitoba were never provided with a meaningful opportunity to consider the proposed government initiative and assist in exploring all viable, less intrusive and more effective alternatives to the proposed amendments. While our names have been on the list and consultation meetings have taken place, the fact remains that such consultation mechanisms have been completely inadequate.

As an example, the consultation meeting organized for stakeholders in Winnipeg last April provided very little notice. Once there, the information offered was sketchy at best and included no precise information as to what the actual amendments were. NACDA received a notice for the meeting five business days before that meeting. The documentation related to the content of the meeting, such as the agenda and the proposed amendments, were received on the Friday preceding the Monday meeting, providing no real opportunity for business stakeholders to share the information, discuss and respond.

Despite our continued attempts to communicate our frustrations to the department, despite our repeated attempts to develop a more meaningful process and partnership with government, NACDA members in Manitoba have come to believe that consultation with their Government is no more than an afterthought.

Our concerns regarding public health protection: The proposed amendments would actually lower health protection standards in Manitoba with regard to tobacco. The federal government's labeling regulations effectively introduced new and more elaborate health warnings for tobacco products two years ago. These are the new health warnings you see on packages.

Argued on the research basis that this specific messaging system provided for the most effective tool for educating and informing consumers and potential consumers such as youth as to the health risks associated with the use of tobacco, Canada's new health warnings were designed to be seen. Manitoba's current interest in denormalizing the product by forcing retailers to essentially hide these warnings, particularly from youth, would seem to largely contradict the federal government's own research, strategy and legislation on tobacco. Manitoba's proposed amendments would force provincial retailers to essentially undermine the spirit of the federal legislation and potentially break the law.

Our concerns regarding the impact on business community stakeholders: Wholesalers and retailers will be unjustifiably, unnecessarily penalized. Tobacco products are an important category to any store that carries them. In chain convenience stores, for example, tobacco products account for 35 to 40 percent of sales. For an independent convenience store tobacco would account for up to 65 percent of their sales. These stores are often family-run operations. There are approximately 1200 legitimate retailers in Manitoba selling tobacco products, 800 of which are small, family-owned, mom-and-pop stores.

Considering the present highly competitive marketplace for hundreds of stores, the loss of tobacco manufacturers' display allowances, resulting from a prohibition on tobacco displays, will greatly impact their livelihoods. In the retail market of today every dollar of income is important. These small businesses, mostly located in rural areas, would be decimated by the loss of such a major revenue stream. For the ones for which that shortfall would not result in store closure in the short term prices on all other product categories would have to be raised to compensate for losses, de facto undermining the operators ability to effectively compete with larger corporate operations. In short, the proposed regulations would favour large corporations at the expense of independent ones owned by Manitobans. Repercussions at the retail level will carry over to distributors operating in Manitoba.

On a final note, following the April 15 meeting and subsequent to NACDA's departmental submission of April 19, NACDA has received no response to a series of important questions forwarded to the department. We would respectfully request that the committee recommend to the department that responses be provided to our members. At this time we would reiterate some of these questions before the committee.

Question No. 1: Has the department undertaken the necessary independent research to justify the measures considered? If so, when will this information be available to stakeholders? If not, will the Government delay implementation of the proposed amendments until this necessary research has been undertaken?

Question No. 2: Has the department identified expected outcomes of the proposed amendments and the mechanism by which the impact of the proposed initiative would be measured? If so, when will this information be made available to stakeholders? If not, will the Government delay implementation of the proposed amendments until this necessary work has been undertaken?

Finally, is the Government of Manitoba interested in working with community stakeholders in developing a more effective comprehensive and meaningful consultation process? If so, how can we move forward?

We appreciate having had the opportunity to introduce ourselves to the committee and to re-address some of the concerns identified in the more comprehensive April submission to the department.

Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Thank you very much for your presentation. Has the Government made any attempt at all to have any discussions with the retail sector on this bill, to your knowledge?

Mr. Martial: Actually, what I would like to do is I would like to, if we could, just redirect that question to somebody who is here with me today, Ron Fulton. He is a NACDA member and a member of your community. He is director of sales and operations for Wallace & Carey.

Mr. Chairperson: Is there leave of the committee to allow Mr. Fulton to answer questions? [Agreed]

Mr. Ron Fulton (Private Citizen): Thank you very much. There has been very little information come towards us as suppliers for the retail stores. There has been some action with independent retail operations, but as far as we are concerned we have not had any information at all.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation.

We need leave of the committee to include a brief by the Canadian Council for Tobacco Control to be part of the written record. Is there leave to include this in the written record? [Agreed]

The next out-of-town presenter is Mr. Bryan Walton, representing the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors. Is Mr. Walton here?

Next is Jim Waters, director of Western Region, Canadian Association of Chain Drug Stores. Please proceed.

Mr. Jim Waters CACDS, Canadian Association of Chain Drug Stores: Good evening. Mr. Chair, we appreciate the opportunity to present the view of the Canadian Association of Chain Drug Stores and its members regarding Bill 37, which amends The Non-Smokers Health Protection Act.

Let me begin with a brief introduction. CACDS is the voice of community chain pharmacy in Canada, comprising 21 members who operate nearly 4000 pharmacies and employ approximately 80 000 people. Ten of our members have stores here in Manitoba. Together CACDS member companies dispense more than 70 percent of the prescriptions filled across Canada.

The mandate of CACDS, a not-for-profit organization, includes ensuring the viability of chain drugstores to provide Canadian consumers with professional health care services and convenient access to the widest range of products. It is that particular area of focus for CACDS which brings us to the discussion of Bill 37.

We were grateful that the Clerk of this committee was able to give us a week's notice to appear and present our views. Unfortunately, we have been somewhat frustrated also by the consultation process to date relative to these tobacco control measures. Last fall we were told by officials within the Department of Health that significant changes in the laws concerning tobacco retailing were being considered and discussed with advocacy groups which favoured such stronger measures although, quote, commercial interests such as retailers were deliberately not being consulted.

* (20:00)

Seven months later there was a consultation session here in Winnipeg, but few retailers were able to attend due to the short notice given, as was indicated by the previous speaker. However, we were encouraged by Minister Chomiak's commitment to establish an advisory committee, which will include retailers, to play a hand in shaping the regulations going forward. Hopefully there will be constructive consideration of the points which we are presenting to this committee this evening.

I must stress that CACDS certainly endorses the intention of Bill 37 as stated in the preamble, and that is: "To protect children and others from advertising and other inducements to use tobacco, so that they will not begin smoking and subsequently become dependent on tobacco."

Indeed, because our stores contain dispensaries, they are uniquely equipped to market to shoppers of all ages the various products designed to help them kick the smoking habit, as well as to provide the expert counselling of a pharmacist regarding the topical patches, chewing gums and other options which are available in drugstores. Our members have been very supportive of the Operation I.D. consumer awareness program which provides staff training, posters and the support of national advertising to help kids, store customers and employees understand that we take seriously our responsibility to see that tobacco products are sold only to people eighteen years of age or older.

Operation I.D. is the only national action plan specifically designed by retailers to help their front line employees refuse the sale of tobacco to minors. It is working, right here in Manitoba, as demonstrated by the March 2001 findings of an AC Nielson survey that showed the compliance rate among retailers refusing to sell cigarettes to minors was 10 points above the national average. The province had 79% compliance compared to 56% measured before Operation I.D. was launched by the Canadian Coalition for Responsible Tobacco Retailing in 1996.

Our review of Bill 37 leaves us wondering if the Government intends to prohibit the display of Operation I.D. materials in stores. As you may know, that, unfortunately, has been the case in Saskatchewan, despite repeated pleas from retailers for that government to leave Operation I.D. alone. Therefore, we urge this committee to recommend that section 4, dealing with display and promotion, not be used as a means of forcing Operation I.D. signage out of retail establishments. In our view, that would truly be a backward step as far as your stated goal of discouraging smoking among youth is concerned.

We also have concerns about an aspect of Bill 37 which is more clearly articulated. That is the restriction on the visibility of tobacco in any store which allows children within its premises. That would apply, of course, to our members' stores. Before addressing our logistical challenges posed by such a measure, I want to point out a noteworthy disadvantage of this strategy. If you have seen a pack of cigarettes lately, you will have noticed it comes with a powerful message printed right on the front. As mandated by the federal government, packages now contain graphic photos and facts intended to help would-be smokers understand the dangers of lighting up, such as the threat of lung cancer, impotence and emphysema. to mention a few of the health risks. The warnings are precisely located on the packages so as to be very visible on the store shelf.

Health Canada introduced this program because, in its words: "When you know the truth, smoking just does not seem cool or sexy anymore."

According to a survey earlier this year by the Canadian Cancer Society, 76 percent of smokers say they support the very explicit health messages appearing on every package. In fact, 44 percent of smokers said the new warnings increased their motivation to quit smoking. The Canadian Cancer Society even visited New Jersey recently to urge that state "to place graphic warning labels on all tobacco products and behind the medicine counters of New Jersey's pharmacies," according to its July 29, 2002 news release. It considers such a measure a reasonable limit on the freedom of expression for tobacco manufacturers, which is now the subject of an appeal being heard by the Québec Superior Court.

However, Bill 37 would make it illegal to display tobacco products, graphic labels notwithstanding. Thus, the impact of the warnings would be lost on the customers at the checkout, who may or may not choose to purchase cigarettes. Visual reinforcement of the messages which governments and anti-tobacco groups have been advancing for many years would be absent at a critical stage in his or her decision making process.

Although some might argue that what is out of sight is also out of mind, we have yet to see proof from Saskatchewan, or any other jurisdiction, that hiding tobacco in stores will actually dissuade young people from smoking. The pressures to do so on youth are more prevalent in schoolyards, within their social circles and elsewhere, as we heard from the young presenters earlier.

Nothing in Bill 37 makes it illegal for minors to possess tobacco, which seems a more logical strategy than focussing on store-level display practices. Consider for a moment the approach taken with alcohol. Government and privately owned stores display bottles of wine, beer and spirits on the shelves, but there are laws in place prohibiting minors from being in possession of those products. Would a parallel strategy not work for tobacco?

Along with other retailers, our members have concerns about the impact of a display ban. There is the initial cost estimated at up to $10,000 for some stores of reconfiguring their front ends, remodeling their checkout counters, customer service desks and so on. In addition, each transaction in the future would take longer when a customer asked for a product that is no longer readily accessible to the store employee.

Some stores anticipate a great security risk from being required to conceal product behind cabinet doors or curtains or even in a separate room. The safety of retail workers should be considered when the tobacco control strategy of this Government is translated into regulation.

As mentioned, the establishment of an advisory committee, with at least one-third representation from the retail community, is welcomed by CACDS and, no doubt, other retail associations.

Also, the provisions dealing with the in-store visibility of tobacco are not scheduled to take effect until January 2004. Hopefully that will allow time for government and its advisory committee to weigh the hard evidence of the unprecedented actions in Saskatchewan before it proceeds down the same path.

In closing, we want to reiterate that protecting children from the ill effects of smoking is a commendable goal for Manitoba to pursue in our view, but we caution that passing laws which inadvertently minimize the impact of the federal initiative to shock smokers into quitting through graphic warnings or which weaken an effective private-sector undertaking to prevent sales to minors would be very counterproductive steps for government to take.

I look forward to addressing any questions or comments from the committee. Thank you for your time.

Madam Vice-Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Waters.

Mr. Jack Penner: Thank you for your presentation. Have you and your organization had any discussions with government about this bill prior to them drafting or proposing this bill?

Mr. Waters: We were part of the consultation which occurred I believe on April 15. That is the one I referred to. We, as others, received a short notice and did not really have the full context of what was to be presented until we were in the room.

So we found it somewhat frustrating to be able to comment intelligently on what was being proposed, and we did not see the actual amendments, of course, until they were tabled a few months later.

* (20:10)

Mr. Jack Penner: In your view, and I listened to your comments, an educational program would be more suited to ensuring that young people, especially, were apprised of the dangers of smoking. Would that be a more reasonable approach than trying to hide the product?

Mr. Waters: I do not believe that one approach alone would suffice, but we certainly believe that the educational effort already underway through the Operation I.D. and the related Operation School Zone program does have impact.

We look with some encouragement at the statistics that show compliance among retailers in instructing their employees to refuse a sale is climbing each year, and, obviously, we see in the examples of school areas that are targeted by the program that kids are staying away from stores. They are not going near the stores which display the various materials relative to the program for the purchase of cigarettes.

Mr. Jack Penner: I am really encouraged by the young people sitting here with their shirts on: Tobacco Free. That, to me, is really an encouragement that young people are starting to see the effects of the dangers of smoking. I say that as a reformed smoker. I smoked heavily, and I have not smoked for 18 years. I think that was one of the best decisions that I made in my own personal life, but never have I believed that hiding a product–and I remember well, when we were youngsters and mother tried hiding something from us, we tried our darnedest to find it. I do not think that young people are any different today than they were then. When you try hiding something, there is a mystique that is created about it, and it would encourage, in my view, young people to seek and try the substance that was identified as being prohibited. I think therein lies some of our problems. We, as legislators, I think, are trying to create a perception that we are attempting to take action which is really not there. If we want to ban smoking, I mean, there is prohibition that was tried in alcohol which did not work, and that could be taken. That would be a sincere approach in trying to take the product out of the system, but to try and hide it is, in our view and my view, simply a matter of trying to play the smoke and mirrors game, and I think we, as legislators, should step beyond that.

Mr. Chairperson: Is there leave for the minister to ask a question? Leave.

Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr. Waters. Just a quick question. Are you aware the advisory committee to the Minister of Health of Ontario has made a number of recommendations today with respect to smoking, which includes: require tobacco retailers to sell products out of sight, banning power walls and tobacco-sponsored point-of-sale displays? Are you aware that recommendation was made by the youth recommendation committee to the Health Minister of Ontario?

Mr. Waters: No, I was not aware of that.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. The next presenter, Ida Miller, submitted a written brief. The next out-of-town presenter is Cynthia Callard or Neil Collishaw, Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada.

Ms. Cynthia Callard (Physicians for a Smoke Free Canada): Good evening. Thanks very much for inviting me or allowing me to come here. I have some papers to circulate. I would like to introduce myself. I work for a group of physicians, but I am not a physician myself. I have worked on legislation and tobacco-control issues since 1985, and it feels like a longer and longer period now, but I can tell you that what we are seeing tonight is par for the course.

This is a very significant piece of legislation, and the Minister of Health and the Legislature are to be applauded for putting it through this far. A sign of it being good is that it is getting opposition. It is getting pushed back. The kind of response we are getting is quite predictable. People who are funded by the tobacco companies will promote what does not work, like Operation I.D. and School Zone, and they will oppose what works. They will threaten job losses. We have watched this with either bans on advertising or bans on smoking in aircraft or bans on smoking in restaurants or health warnings. The arguments end up being always the same. This is going to cause job loss, and I will mention, later on, that it actually almost never does.

I have circulated three pieces of information. One is a written brief with lots of facts that I will not force you to listen through. Another one is quite interesting. It is a contract between 7-Eleven. You had a submission from 7-Eleven earlier. This is a contract I found in a bunch of documents from RJR-Macdonald. It is now JTI-Macdonald. In that, they were paying 7-Eleven, in the last year, I think it was '93, $711,000 for the No. 3 spot in placement. So presumably the No. 1 spot, which went to Imperial Tobacco and No. 2 spot which went to Rothmans, Benson and Hedges paid any more. So I would guess that they were earning, you know, at least $700,000 per tobacco company per year to put these displays and so forth in their store, and with $3 million at stake I am not surprised they want something else. What they want is something that says tobacco, come of age. As though we needed another incentive for tobacco to be a badge product of adulthood, they go and have their access names of things like come of age. When we write them and ask them voluntarily to please stop doing something that is destructive to public health, they do not usually answer the letters.

The third thing I have circulated is some recommendations from the World Bank. Now the World Bank is not your basic left-leaning organization. When the World Bank says that you should have a complete advertising ban, consider the source, and they say partial bans do not work. Why do partial bans not work? Because the advertising, it says in this little two-page flyer, the advertising slips to something else like retail, which is what is happening in the States and it is like what is happening in Canada.

I want to remind you that tobacco will not be the only products which will not be allowed for display at retail. There are other products that are like that. I do not know exactly the law in Manitoba, but I imagine that adult videos are somewhat restricted in how they are shown, and adult magazines. Explosive and fireworks in many jurisdictions cannot be displayed. Prescription pharmaceutical products cannot be displayed. Guns and ammunition cannot be displayed, and the reason they cannot be displayed is because we want to have something that signifies the risk. We want them to be treated in a way that communicates their role in society, which is one of a restricted potentially dangerous product.

I think it is important at this point to remind of what this is all about, why do they advertise. The companies say it is all about brand switching. But when you look over the millions of pages of tobacco industry documents that are now public, you see that brand switching is the least important reason, especially when 70 percent of the market is owned by one company that continues to advertise. They are not really worried about brand switching. The real important reasons are that they want to replace the smokers who quit and die, and they want to create an environment where smokers and non-smokers feel as positive about tobacco and as positive about tobacco manufacturers as possible.

Advertising helps them retain their smokers, to recruit their smokers and to achieve support for tobacco-friendly policies. They create kind of a friendly familiarity. You know, everywhere you go there is tobacco, and so for kids, too, it is kind of friendly familiarity. They get up more often than we would like, there is tobacco in the home. They walk to buy their candy bars, there is tobacco there. They go into a restaurant, well, they do not here, but in some places they go to a restaurant and they see smoking. They go to the schoolyard, they see smoking. It is part of the continuing kind of normalizing of tobacco, and that is why measures that denormalize tobacco are so important.

It also creates kind of a familiarity effect, a term, a buzzword that risk communicators talk about, familiarity effect. The thing you know is not scary. The new thing is scary. So they want to keep it as something you know. I mean, West Nile is scary, right, but salmonella is not. We have this weird human tendency to worry about the things we do not know, and as long as tobacco stays really well-known then people do not really treat it as dangerously as it is.

* (20:20)

If you wanted more proof of how important retail displays are to tobacco companies, there is no better proof than how much money they spend on it. Even when they could spend as much as they liked on advertising, after the Supreme Court decision in '95-96 and before the law in 1988, they could spend as much, pretty much as they darn well liked on tobacco advertising, and they spent in those years more than 50 percent of their advertising dollar at the retail level paying for those power walls, paying for the countertop displays and paying for clocks and watches and other things like that. They paid about $80 million. That is a big chunk of change in promotion, and they paid it at a time when the only amount they were paying for sponsorship was $60 million, the amount they were paying for billboard advertising was about $10 million. So that gives you kind of a sense of the proportion.

This should be a no-brainer. Like, there is no reason for retailers to fear this change, in my view. I have not been to a 7-Eleven in Manitoba, but it is a chain store and I think they are pretty common. The clerk reaches up from above a shelf. The shelf is made of Plexiglas so you can see all the tobacco brands behind it. Well, replace the Plexiglas or paint the Plexiglas and all of a sudden these cigarettes are obstructed. The clerk does not have to do anything different than she or he did before. She reaches up for the brand. This is not particularly difficult. Meanwhile the promotion space can go to something else.

Your last presenter speaking for pharmacies did not mention that in half the provinces of Canada there are no tobacco sales in pharmacies. In Ontario, I remember when the law came through they said, whoa, we are going to lose 600 jobs here. It is like always 30 percent somehow around the market. I do not why, every tobacco control measure is met with that 30 percent of the labour force is going to be lost type of argument, we are going to lose a lot of jobs. Well, in fact the number of pharmacies that opened after the ban on cigarette sales went in went up. Even Shoppers Drug Mart, which was owned by Imasco at that time which owned Imperial Tobacco, admitted they had had no problem recouping the revenues that had been lost as a result of cigarette sales.

The experience is such that there should not be a problem, but even if there were a problem, I do not run a ma-and-pa corner store, I run a bit of a mom-and-pop NGO, so I understand the issues of cash flow and you have to keep money coming in and so forth and I understand these fears are real, but the retailers make money in two ways. They sell the advertising space and they make a markup on the product. All they have to do is increase the markup on the product and they have replaced the revenues from the advertising space that they cannot get anymore.

When I do my calculations and I take $80 million divided by the number of cigarettes sold in Canada, it comes to 3 or 4 cents a package. So instead of charging $7.70 for a package of cigarettes they can charge $7.80. I do not think that is kind of particularly hard to figure out how to do. Since they are all going to be in the same boat it is kind of a level playing field.

In fairness, I am not surprised they are frightened because they have all received letters from the tobacco companies telling them they should be frightened. Every time a piece of legislation comes in of this measure they will receive the same thing: This is going to cause economic calamity.

This is why I am going to be having to go back and sit in rooms like this in federal legislatures and other provincial legislatures, listening to them, to tell you: Do not just be confident that this measure is going to work, be very proud that it is going to work. Be confident because when they banned billboard advertising the billboard manufacturers said, whoa, this is 30 percent of our billboard space; we are going to lose all our money. Well, five years later they were writing in their own magazines it was one of the best things that happened to them because they diversified their revenue source and they ended up having more money. They did not go out of business. There are no fewer billboards than there were before.

Similarly, with the pharmacies, they had no experience like that, restaurant revenues, they were not to go up. There has been virtually no recorded case of significant economic loss from a tobacco control measure because they make good economic sense.

I want to close by encouraging you to pass this legislation. There are a few housekeeping friendly amendments floating around. If you can strengthen it before you pass it, all the better. I want to remind you also that the federal government backed down. In 1999, they promised measures that would not ban but they would curtail the displays to one package per brand and they backed down before the onslaught of retailers. I think it was a real tragedy.

Saskatchewan, by adopting very similar measures a year ago, showed it could be done. I think Manitoba, by adopting, can show the rest of Canada that it should be done. Speaking as a federal Ottawa-based agency, I would very much like to see that happen and to thank you again for allowing me to come and to say it is incredibly hospitable of you to put out-of-town people first, especially when they come from Ottawa. So thanks very much.

Mr. Chomiak: In keeping with that we want to hear from more presenters, I just want to thank you very much for coming and for making a presentation, as I am sure all members are to all presenters.

Ms. Callard: Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation.

We have some committee business to conduct. Presenter No. 18 was registered to present in French. I will call their names a second time: Fern and Ginette Piche, Manitoba Responsible Retailers Association, are you in the room? That name has been called twice now.

Is there agreement from the committee to let the translators go home? [Agreed]

The next out-of-town presenter is Joe Brunner. Mr. Brunner.

Next presenter is Al Suggitt, MACS Convenience Stores.

Mr. Don Toyne (MACS Convenience Stores): Al was unable to be here tonight. My name is Don Toyne. I am representing MACS.

Mr. Chairperson: Excuse me. Is there leave of the committee to allow Mr. Don Toyne to present in place? [Agreed]

Mr. Toyne: Thank you. For 26 years I have operated C stores, corner stores. I sold out last year to a MACS out of Ontario, so I no longer share in the revenue stream of these display allowances that you were talking about. I cannot believe there are people here tonight that want us to hide the packaging that we have at our stores. Had you proposed this Bill 37 20 years ago, I probably would have agreed with you.

I travel to all our stores, day in, day out and it is unbelievable. I talk to teenagers about the packaging. I see the kids pointing at them, making faces, it is unbelievable, so that is working. Why you want to hide it, I cannot believe it.

I believe smoking is a social issue. I just got through planning two stores, one in Winkler, Manitoba and the second in The Pas. Every time I plan a store I have to project sales. For Winkler I projected tobacco sales to be 20 percent. The second store in The Pas I projected tobacco sales to be 50 percent. So you cannot collect billions of dollars in taxes and spend a few pennies trying to educate our youth not to take up the habit.

As long as Manitoba is the child poverty province or capital of Canada, you will not fix your problem of youth taking up the habit of smoking tobacco, I can tell you that much. Twenty-six years in the business, I have seen it. You have to spend more money. In the U.S. there are some states where the smoking of underage, I am talking 15 to 19 year olds, has been dropping because they spend four times the amount that we spend in Canada.

If you want to fix the problem of the youth, and I agree with you, spend more money. You just raised taxes, $9.80 a carton, and you have not offered anything back for education. What you want to do is reduce the allowances to the retailer. It is an easy way out. Dr. Mark Taylor will be happy. I believe there is no financial impact to the Government. It is on the retailers' shoulders. You have to spend more money. You have just raised the taxes, spend it on education.

My parents smoked, I smoke. I have a 20-year-old and a 24-year-old. They both do not smoke, and I can assure you it is not because I asked them not to smoke. It is because of the educators. We have to give the educators more money. Give them credit and give them more money. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation.

The next presenter is Lynn Greaves, Saskatchewan Coalition for Tobacco Reduction.

* (20:30)

Ms. Lynn Greaves (Saskatchewan Coalition for Tobacco Reduction): Thank you very much. I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to present today and tell you some of the experiences we have had in Saskatchewan. As you are aware, Saskatchewan's Tobacco Control Act contains a section similar to the section you are considering and it bans the display of tobacco products.

I would like to perhaps take a moment from my presentation just to remark on a couple of the comments that have been made previously. One was that retailers consultation in Saskatchewan was an afterthought. I would like to correct that. Retailers were consulted to a great extent. I was thinking of saying something like: If you are going to say that retailers were not consulted in Saskatchewan, it was kind of like saying it does not snow in Saskatchewan. They were consulted fully and possibly more than health organizations.

Also, Operation I.D. does go on in Saskatchewan. The only situation that happened there was that there was no endorsement of those particular signs for Operation ID.

I come from the Saskatchewan Coalition for Tobacco Reduction which is similar to MANTRA here in Manitoba. We represent organizations that are similar: the Saskatchewan Lung Association, the Heart and Stroke Foundation, and we have a students group, Students Working Against Tobacco.

I would like to point out that our legislation did have unanimous support. The Saskatchewan Tobacco Control Act was first started with a recommendation by the all-party committee of members of the Legislative Assembly. All members were represented on the committee, and there was extensive consultation with hearings around the province and meetings with stakeholders. After that, the committee members themselves recommended that they should ban tobacco product displays in a committee report. The report's recommendation was then put into The Tobacco Control Act and this act was passed unanimously by all members of the Legislative Assembly.

As you aware and as many people have said, "power walls" in vast quantities, far more than is necessary to supply consumers, are a part of the tobacco industry's marketing plan. The oversized retail display cases promote tobacco to children and youth, and it is no mistake that they are in clear view of kids who represent the tobacco industry's future customers. As the Canadian Cancer Society states: It is impossible for these displays to be consistent with the industry's claim that their promotions only target adult smokers. Children should not grow up in an environment where they see such promotions and they have to make their way by such promotions every time they go to a corner store.

In talking to various stakeholders in Saskatchewan about compliance, I wish to bring you this information. As you are aware, there are tobacco enforcement officers with Health Canada. In Saskatchewan, we have six and they are involved in ongoing inspections of tobacco retail establishments. At the time the report was made, they have inspected almost all the retail establishments in major centres in Saskatchewan.

They report that virtually all retailers are complying with the display provision, and they also observe that compliance appears to have been achieved at minimal cost to retailers. They report that no stores to their knowledge have closed and no staff have been laid off.

In talking to the Saskatchewan Pharmaceutical Association which represents over 350 retail outlets, Ray Joubert, who is their spokesperson, says: Compliance is high and implementation has gone smoothly. There have been no significant problems or failures, economically or otherwise.

In addition, it might also be mentioned that all 33 Saskatchewan health districts also signed on to support The Tobacco Control Act and the "power wall" ban.

We have some information for you from different parts of Saskatchewan so that you can hear also what residents in different parts of Saskatchewan are saying about it. Saskatchewan people have been very positive about not allowing the tobacco industry to advertise tobacco products on a daily basis to children and youth, and we feel that part of this is the increasing recognition of what the tobacco industry is doing.

Because, as you are aware, hundreds of thousands of Canadian smokers quit annually and over 45 000 die from tobacco industry products, the industry must make up these losses by acquiring new smokers. Children are the only new source of tobacco industry customers, since very few people begin smoking after the age of 18. In Saskatchewan the average age of a new smoker is 13. Children become addicted quickly and approximately half of these die prematurely. You have there a number of comments from people in different parts of Saskatchewan: Prince Alberta, Saskatoon, Regina, Moose Jaw, Weyburn, La Ronge, and North Battleford.

It is quite accepted. It is something that is quite accepted by the population, and it is nice to see that after five months. I think the final thing that it would be good for you to know is that the tobacco industry has had a role in opposing the legislation in Saskatchewan. The industry hired a paid lobbyist to lobby members of the Legislative Assembly in order to weaken the proposed legislation. In addition, a Saskatchewan committee for responsible tobacco retailing appeared and, while proclaiming themselves to be poor retailers, mounted a $10,000 fax campaign to retailers, urging them to oppose the legislation by calling their members of the Legislative Assembly. The committee provided Saskatchewan retailers with a great deal of misinformation, some of it similar to what we have heard tonight. Suspicions of links between the retail committee and the tobacco industry were actually confirmed when a spokesperson for the above committee admitted to the Government it was a subcommittee of the Canadian Coalition for Responsible Tobacco Retailing, which is a tobacco industry coalition described on the industry's Web site. This was admitted to a person with the Government. In addition, the ad agency hired by the committee is the same one later hired by the tobacco industry.

There are a number of arguments I suppose or misinformation that retailers said in Saskatchewan and some of them you may have heard before: The fact that banning tobacco product displays will not affect youth smoking when there is a mountain of evidence to prove otherwise. The Cancer Society has a report to that effect. Youth possession laws have been recommended when in fact none of the world's most respected tobacco control organizations support this. The undue economic hardship has not happened and the only business that does suffer is the tobacco industry.

So, in conclusion, the banning of tobacco product displays has been well accepted by people in Saskatchewan and retailer acceptance and compliance are good. I just draw your attention to some of the attachments. One is July 23, just a few days ago, a page in the Leader Post; it was a full-page ad talking about how good economics was in Saskatchewan and a Canadian Cancer Society information sheet, and some more information that you might find interesting to read.

Thank you once again for this opportunity.

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Thank you for your presentation and update on how things have gone in Saskatchewan. Has there been any attempt to assess a change in smoking habits or cigarette consumption since the legislation was introduced and proclaimed?

Ms. Greaves: Yes, I understand the provincial government is monitoring this, but of course almost within a few weeks of the ban being proclaimed there was an increase in tobacco tax. So we have both of those and we have quite a bit of anecdotal information that shows there are a lot of people quitting smoking. Physicians and so on are telling us that, but the monitoring is being done by the provincial government who could maybe make that available to you.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation.

Mr. Chairperson: We will now start with other presenters, beginning with Bill 31. The first being Lissa Donner, representing the Coalition for Access to Physician Profiles.

The next name is Bill Pope, College of Physicians and Surgeons. Please proceed. Do you have a written presentation?

Mr. Bill Pope (College of Physicians and Surgeons): Not for circulation, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Chair, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Bill Pope. I am a physician, and I am the registrar of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba, who will be implementing and operating the physician profile. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this bill

* (20:40)

First, let me say that all the amendments, other than the amendments to permit the creation of physician profiles, were requested by the college, and we fully support those amendments, as drafted. The balance of the college's comments are with respect to the amendments to permit the creation of physician profiles. Generally, the college has no issue with legislation, enabling the creation of physician profiles, and we have, in fact, worked continuously with the minister and the Department of Health since the discussions on this began. In fact, since the release of the Thomas committee report and, certainly, more recently the college has been an active participant in the steering committee that the minister established to consider issues respecting physician profiles, and I co-chair that committee. I believe that all participants in the steering committee understood that the committee's work was directed at achieving as much consensus as possible on those issues with a view to introduction of legislation permitting physician profiles and, notwithstanding the general acceptance of the concept of physician profiles, we do have a number of issues which I would just like to raise about Bill 31.

The college, firstly, is strongly of the view that the legislative amendment is premature. The steering committee has yet to finish its work, and there are still some fairly significant issues under discussion. Furthermore, the detail of the proposed system is to be found in the regulations which, of course, have yet to be drafted. It is, therefore, extremely difficult to provide a comprehensive comment at this time. The college is of the view that it would be preferable to have a comprehensive plan in the form of an act amendment and draft regulations, and we have indicated this already to the minister. One of the examples of this is that Bill 31 states that it applies to members of the college. Under the registration and the licensure scheme that The Medical Act creates, a person may be registered with the college for up to two years but not actually licensed. During that time, a member may be practising in another jurisdiction and so some questions arise such as: At what point does an individual's profile, should it be no longer posted or otherwise available to the public, and, if it is at the time that registration ceases as opposed to the time that licensure ceases, is there an obligation to keep information current on those members who are not practising in Manitoba? Will it be acceptable, for example, to post a disclaimer respecting the lack of current information? I put this example forward just as one of the very complex issues which we have yet to determine.

Secondly, the council of the college is concerned about the posting of criminal offences which may be unrelated to the practice of medicine. Surely, all of the information to be contained in any profile must be relevant to the purpose of creating the profiles. If the information is not relevant to the practice of medicine, council believes that the privacy interests of physicians should prevail.

Subclause 19.1(2)(a)(7) refers to "other medical malpractice claims." My council believes that it would be inappropriate to require claims to be posted when there is no finding or settlement, because the claim may ultimately be found to have no merit. As well, council is concerned about posting settlements, as the rationale behind the settlement may be factors other than merit, for example, the cost of proceedings through court. Before including in a profile anything other than court judgments, we must give careful consideration to issues such as the implications that this might have for civil cases and the great difficulty in monitoring compliance.

Fourth, individual physicians are given an opportunity to review their profiles, but there is no dispute resolution mechanism if a disagreement arises about the content of a profile.

Fifth, council noted that the physicians are being targeted for this initiative and the principles behind the arguments in favour of physician profiles apply equally to other types of health care providers. One of the previous speakers mentioned the Law Reform Commission Report some years ago which approached all professionals. My council was concerned that this appears somewhat discriminatory and believes that the profile system should be applied at least to all the other health care professionals.

Finally, and the minister is aware of this, council was very concerned that Bill 31 is silent on the issue of the costs of providing for physician profiles. Council noted that the minister did state publicly that Manitoba Health will provide funding for this initiative, and I was present with the minister at that time, which the minister acknowledged could be millions of dollars. I hasten to say that this college does not question the commitment of this minister. However, given the extremely significant expense to establish, and, I emphasize, to maintain physician profiling, my council is strongly of the view that the Government funding for this initiative should be included in Bill 31.

Thank you for allowing me to make my comments.

Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Thank you, Doctor Pope. A question for you. Has there been any consideration as to whether or not having mortality rates included in there being something that would be useful or a hindrance in any way to anything?

Mr. Pope: Certainly the issue of mortality rates is something that the implementation committee will discuss. It has been raised and I am sure we will be discussing it further.

Other than that, I cannot answer too much further. Much of this would depend, of course, upon the availability and the cost of actually being able to maintain, monitor and present this information in a reasonable and useful fashion.

Mrs. Driedger: I was in conversation a few nights ago with one of the nurses who had been involved in the pediatric cardiac inquest, very involved in the cases where the babies died, and we were discussing the issue of physician profiles. I asked her do you believe that the profiles themselves could or would have prevented any of the baby deaths. In her view, she indicated, no.

Probably, in and of themselves, I mean, they are a tool and certainly a step towards increasing accountability and transparency in the system, but would you agree that there needs to be a number of other partnering activities happening at the same time in terms of addressing the issue of medical errors, hospital communication systems, policies, et cetera?

Mr. Pope: The answer is a very strongly worded yes. I do not want to digress because it does not speak to this bill too much, but, certainly, as far as the College of Physicians and Surgeons is concerned, this is one aspect of improving the system to ensure that, in particular, as you mentioned, medical errors are addressed in both a timely and in an appropriate fashion.

This was one of the major recommendations from the College's point of view made by Professor Thomas, and we are working with Minister Chomiak to have this come to pass.

But there were a number of other issues, from the College's point of view, which we are also addressing, and I think some of them have already been mentioned tonight.

There are also other issues that other parts in the field were doing, so the Health Sciences Centre and the WRHA have made enormous changes to their processes. As it happens, this was a piece of legislation which the minister was able to work with, but changing the processes are quite dramatic, and quite a number of those things have already occurred.

As you may be aware, Manitoba Health, the College of Physicians and Surgeons, the College of Registered Nurses of Manitoba, the WRHA and the Manitoba Pharmaceutical Association are all promoting, over a period of time, every six months now, a major session to look specifically at medical errors and how those can be addressed and how the approach of the community to the system can change, which is really what we need to do.

One of those has already occurred. There are others coming up in the future. We look very much to changing the culture which is the only way to really ensure, I think, that this does not happen again.

Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): I have one very significant concern related to this, and that is in relationship to I guess whether or not you can actually–I do not even know what the word is. Let me just tell you the story and then maybe it will all come to me.

I was informed that the pediatric cardiologist who was involved here in Winnipeg and had worked here for seven years went to work in the United States. Where he went to work had physician profiles. Somebody went onto that site to look at the profile of doctors working at that particular facility, and while this pediatric cardiologist's name and profile were on the site, the whole seven years or whatever that he was involved here in Winnipeg was totally missing off his physician profile.

How could we prevent something like that from happening? The person who was commenting to me said, well, you then end up with basically lies by omission where you have no obligation perhaps to state your full medical practice. So how do we get around something like that? In that case, the profiles are totally useless because the piece that was significant to a parent whose baby is going to be operated on–and here the cardiologist's profile of his whole tenure in Winnipeg where he ran into all the trouble was not on there. So a call was made from Winnipeg by somebody to this facility to indicate that, in fact, that piece was missing. How do we get around avoiding that?

Mr. Pope: Firstly, remember, he was a pediatric cardiac surgeon, not a cardiologist. [interjection] Right. The issue, I think it depends in this particular circumstance on the organization which enters the information. I am not sure, of course, what the organization was that did not have the appropriate information, but, if we are talking about past history, if this is going to be one of the things, then certainly I cannot, at the present time, imagine that we would license someone where we have a blank. So it will be the college as the licensing authority that will enter the information, because we are the ones that have access and can require our members to produce all information.

Under those circumstances, as we will be entering it, were there to be a gap, we would want to know why and what the issues were. In many circumstances, right across this country, that would likely go to either refusing or a significant review of that physician's licensure because of failure to report. So I think those are the kinds of systems, certainly, that the Canadian medical licensing authorities already utilize very strictly, that would help to prevent what you are mentioning.

* (20:50)

Mr. Chairperson: We are out of time. Is there leave for Mrs. Driedger to ask one brief question? [Agreed]

Mrs. Driedger: It is actually not a question. It is just clarification. The person that I was referencing was the cardiologist that was the physician that had been referring the patients to the cardiac surgeon and was part of the inquest review. So it was his profile that I was referring to.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. We have some committee business. We have a written presentation by Mr. Hans Bhangu. Is there leave of the committee to include this written submission in the transcript of tonight's committee meeting. [Agreed]

Bill 36, Paul Moist, CUPE Manitoba - Canadian Union of Public Employees. Is Paul Moist in the room? Proceeding on to Bill 37, Shelly Wiseman, Canadian Federation of Independent Business. Please proceed.

Ms. Shelly Wiseman (Canadian Federation of Independent Business): On behalf of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and our many members who sell tobacco products such as convenience stores and service stations, I am here to present our members opposition to the proposed regulations and policies surrounding The Non-Smokers Health Protection Act.

As many of you know, CFIB represents the interests of small- and medium-sized businesses in Canada and Manitoba. We have 102 000 members in Canada, 4700 in the province of Manitoba, so to begin.

It is important to state that CFIB agrees with the Government's main goal with respect to tobacco control, which is to keep youth from smoking. However, many of our members believe the Government's heavy-handed approach to ban the display and promotion of tobacco products will not prevent young people from smoking but instead create significant difficulties for small business. Rather than simply putting in place more restrictions on tobacco retailers, we believe the Government should consider making underage possession of cigarettes illegal.

I note the Government news release states the timing and details of the amendments will be determined after a consultation with business and other stakeholders. However, the information package sent regarding the consultation process clearly spelled out the details of how the legislation would be interpreted, implemented and enforced.

It is evident that this was not a true consultation with business, rather an information session on the amendments to the legislation. CFIB is extremely disappointed that government has not fulfilled its obligation and commitment to the business community by not having true consultation. Our members have expressed concern over the extra costs associated with rebuilding their checkout counters in order to abide by the legislation, which would ban all cigarettes from public view.

Many small businesses simply do not have the room to move their existing stock of cigarettes under the counter. This space is already occupied with computer equipment, other supplies to the cash register and often a safe.

Lacking the extra counter space, many businesses will be faced with storing the cigarettes in a separate room which raises additional concerns related to safety. The safety risk of clerks who will now have to retrieve cigarettes and leave the cash register unattended may prove to be a recipe for additional robberies and shoplifting. Business owners would not be able to afford to simply hire an additional employee to cover those employees who would need to retrieve the cigarettes from the other room.

Overall, we believe the main impact of the requirement will be to give large tobacco retailers an added advantage over small retailers and have no beneficial effect on underage tobacco consumption.

CFIB surveyed affected members on the impact of the proposed amendments to the act. In addition, members were asked their views on the industry-led Operation I.D. program, whether the Government should compensate retailers for the costs associated with reconfiguring counters and checkouts, and suggestions on how to reduce tobacco consumption by minors.

An overwhelming 88 percent of respondents felt that prohibiting the display and advertising of tobacco and tobacco-related products would have a very negative or somewhat negative impact on their business. Less than 5 percent stated it would have a positive or somewhat positive effect.

The following are comments from an open-ended question on the impact this legislation might have on business. These are taken right from our survey. Member comments: a loss of profit, sales and staff cutbacks. The Government has hurt the retailer enough; first an increase in the minimum wage and now this. What is next? The law in place now is working. There is limited space available to have the product nearby but hidden. It will be costly and inconvenient for us as well as the customer. Being a new business owner, I would have the added expense that I cannot afford. It would cause an increase in costs keeping cigarettes out of sight and an increased cost of staffing because the tobacco would not be handy. It would require us to again spend money on something that will be absolutely pointless.

The above sample of comments clearly indicates that the proposed legislation will have a negative impact on business in this province. In addition, it is evident business owners do not believe the changes will prevent minors from smoking.

Saskatchewan announced legislation that would ban all tobacco-related advertising, including the elimination of the successful industry-led Operation I.D. In that province, industry-paid signage has been replaced with government created, tax-paid signage. Given that Manitoba has followed the lead of Saskatchewan in this legislation, the federation surveyed our Manitoba members to determine what impact a similar ban would have on their business. Over two-thirds, 68 percent of members surveyed responded that they participate in the Operation I.D. program.

The following are comments on what impact the elimination of this program would have on retailers: It would cause our business to incur extra costs for signage and developing training manuals. Very negative. This is an effective program as most youth have I.D. ready. It has become the norm. One less tool to help us prevent sales to minors. It would lead to more abuse of sales staff and increase the likelihood of businesses being fined as a result of lying customers. Staff would not be as focussed on refusing sales to minors. It would make it harder on young employees.

We believe the Government should be working with the private sector, not in opposition. By replacing or eliminating the Operation I.D. program, retailers will lose a successful tool for identifying minors. In addition, retailers will likely lose the tobacco advertising money provided by the industry.

The information provided by the Government related to the legislation indicates that retailers will not be compensated for the costs associated with meeting the legislated requirements. However, CFIB survey results show that over three-quarters, 76 percent of respondents felt the Government should compensate retailers for the costs associated with reconfiguring counters or checkouts.

The proposed changes to the legislation will come at a significant cost to retailers in this province, particularly small independent owners. Without some type of cost relief, many business owners will be facing financial difficulty. CFIB notes that the Government announced it will provide funding to municipalities to support nonsmoking by-laws, yet retailers have been left out of any funding provisions.

As a result of the amendments, retailers will be forced to incur the costs of retrofitting counters, will potentially lose industry-paid advertising and display allowance and will be forced to hire more staff. Government cannot overlook the financial implications the proposed legislation will have on small retailers in the province.

As noted above, CFIB recommends the Government make the possession of tobacco products by minors illegal. Member comments gathered from CFIB surveys indicate penalties or fines for minors caught in possession of cigarettes is a viable option. Others recommend that government ban the use of artificial flavouring and filters in cigarettes to allow smokers the true taste and effect of tobacco. Education is also viewed as an important component in preventing youth from smoking. Ultimately, it must be recognized that the Government cannot pass this burden solely on the shoulders of those selling tobacco products. As one member commented, we must make the Government responsible for policing, not retailers or minors who work part-time.

We are also concerned such legislation may prevent workers under 18 years of age from handling tobacco products. Given the significant shortage of qualified labour in Manitoba, this would exacerbate the problem and reduce employment opportunities for young people. CFIB urges government to consider the full implications of this legislation before adopting it.

* (21:00)

It is important to note that CFIB members from across Canada are closely watching the outcome of this legislation. Many have called our Winnipeg office to raise their concerns with this new act, specifically prohibiting the display and promotion of tobacco. CFIB believes the proposed changes to The Non-Smokers Health Protection Act will only introduce additional irritants and regulations for the business community. CFIB has said for years that streamlining the regulatory burden is a low-cost way of freeing up business resources and enhancing competitiveness. Unfortunately, these amendments will do the exact opposite.

There are a number of unanswered questions related to this legislation. As government has not provided full or meaningful consultation, CFIB would like to raise the following questions and concerns:

Will it be a violation if a youth sees cigarettes that his or her parents are buying? How does a retailer show the product to a potential customer without breaking the law? Retailers are essentially playing the role of parents in this situation.

Will there be a time limit as to how long the customer can inspect the product before purchasing it?

Will youth under 18 be allowed to work in retail stores that sell cigarettes? If they are prohibited from seeing the cigarettes, are they prohibited from handling them while on the job? If so, this will have a huge impact on those youth that often find their first jobs in the retail sector.

For those retailers open 24 hours, it is unclear when they can restock their shelves without violating the law.

Retail outlets get extremely busy and cabinet doors may be accidentally left open for a few minutes for a few inches. Will fines be issued if this is the case?

Renovations will be costly and without merit as such changes will not curtail smoking amongst minors. Removing products from view will do little to affect the attitudes that minors have towards products. In fact, friends, family and availability of educational material are the key factors that influence the behaviour of young people.

Our next question was asking how long this will take to comply. I know that it has been passed to January 1, 2004.

Will government ban or replace the Operation I.D. program?

CFIB reminds government that the proposed amendments to The Non-Smokers Health Protection Act will have significant implications for business, particularly small employers. We urge the Government to engage in meaningful consultation with the appropriate stakeholders before further pursuing this issue. It is clear that there are a number of unanswered questions that could have dire consequences for retailers. CFIB members have clearly stated they do not believe the proposed amendments will prevent minors from accessing tobacco products. Government should not be passing the sole responsibility of prevention on to employers, and should instead consider making it illegal for minors to possess tobacco products.

Lastly, CFIB notes that members of the tobacco industry in Saskatchewan have filed a lawsuit against the provincial government. It is their contention that this legislation is in violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The outcome of this case is sure to have implications for Manitoba legislation. Therefore, CFIB argues that this legislation is not only harmful to business but is inappropriate for the Manitoba government to be pursuing at this time.

There are a number of unanswered questions surrounding this legislation. CFIB urges government to address these concerns and fully consider the impact such changes will have on retailers in this province.

Thank you for your consideration.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation.

The next presenter is Noel Bernier. Mr. Bernier.

The next presenter is Liz Ostiguay, Canadian Cancer Society, with a written brief. Please proceed.

Ms. Liz Ostiguay (Canadian Cancer Society): I will not scare you with this, but I will get to it in a minute. Good evening. My name is Liz Ostiguay, and I am representing the Canadian Cancer Society. I want to thank the committee for allowing me the privilege to address a few comments tonight in the context of the review of Bill 37.

The society wishes to take this opportunity to acknowledge the efforts of the Manitoba government to protect the health and well-being of your citizens, in particular, the youth of this province. When three of ten persons over the age of 15 are smokers, this places a tremendous burden on society. This supports the adoption of an aggressive tobacco control strategy to reduce the burden of smoking-related diseases in Manitoba and to protect children and others, the starters, to use the tobacco companies' terms, from advertising and other inducements to use tobacco.

The world-wide evidence that tobacco promotion increases consumption is overwhelming, and I would like to table for your consideration these documents, which summarizes the evidence that has been brought together by the Cancer Society. This may address some concerns people expressed earlier that you guys had not done your homework, so we brought you a little bit to look at.

I am here tonight to address the real impact of point-of-purchase displays and the role that such sales promotion plays in increasing tobacco consumption. The purpose of any corporation is to make profits for its shareholders. These profits are obviously connected to sales, and sales are increased by the implementation of marketing strategies. The basis of any marketing strategy is to influence the response of buyers. According to Marshall McLuhan the steady trend in advertising is to manifest the product as an integral part of large social purpose and processes, thus making the product more appealing. Fundamentally, marketing moves good from the producer to the consumer. This applies equally to tobacco companies as it does to car manufacturers, as it does to telecommunications companies. Companies promote, display, advertise, provide free trials for one reason and one reason only, to increase overall demand for their product.

Sales promotion plays a particular role in the overall strategy towards corporate profits. Authors of advertising a framework stated: Sales promotion is an extra incentive for a customer to make an immediate purchase. Whereas advertising creates awareness and brand preference, sales promotion closes the sale. Cents-off coupons, point-of-purchase displays, sweepstakes and other contests are examples of sales promotion. Working in concert, advertising builds long-term brand loyalty while sales promotion acts as a short-term boost to sales. Restrictions in advertising has pushed the tobacco industry to place more emphasis on point-of-purchase advertising to achieve their corporate goals. Following the establishment of advertising restrictions in the U.S., the new president of Imperial Tobacco Canada, Mr. Bexon stated increasingly the store will be treated, not just as an outlet for volume, but as a targeted communication channel.

Marketing experts agree that point-of-purchase advertising is a tool that communicates directly to consumers. The tobacco industry contends that point-of-purchase advertising has no effect upon demand and is only used to influence brand preference amongst active smokers. A study by the point-of-purchase advertising international group found that specific in-store recall was highest when placed at the register, precisely where the tobacco industry pays for its space. This afternoon, I walked down from the cancer office to go get some gum, and, at the local convenience store, I hardly had any place to put my gum on the counter because there were packs of cigarettes, there were containers of tobacco for rolling your own cigarettes and back behind the wall was wall-to-wall cigarettes, a little bit of an impact.

The industry study also found that top-performing product categories for recall were carbonated beverages and cigarettes. This is not surprising as an accepted marketing principle is eye-level placement. By the way, Operation I.D. was above my head, so misses the eye-placement concept. An example of product placement is just around the corner at your local grocery store. Supermarkets consider that the choicest display is located at a level of 51 to 53 inches off the floor. The most profitable items and brands garner this most valuable position and manufacturers pay to have their products placed optimally.

Parents understand the impact of the eye-level candy display at the corner store or as you get to the grocery register. As you stand in line, you have the little kids saying, hey, mommy, mommy, get me a package of Smarties, please. One of us caves in from time to time.

* (21:10)

In another point-of-purchase study looking at brand selection among teenage smokers, Doctor Wakefield and her group indicated that it is known that brand choices are usually made early during the life of a smoker, with a high concordance between the brand first smoked and the brand eventually selected as the usual brand. Tobacco company documents indicate that cigarette companies appreciate the significance of recruiting the young to their own brands. Research demonstrates that young smokers are three times more sensitive to brand share of tobacco advertising than older smokers, leading to the conclusion that competition between cigarette companies seems predominated by the battle of brands for market share among the young.

Smokers are fiercely loyal to their brands of first choice. According to experts, only one in ten smokers will switch brands in their lifetime. The argument that point-of-purchase advertising only influences brand choices contradicts proven marketing research. Those within the marketing community understand that point-of-purchase advertising is a sales promotion method that is highly effective at communicating with consumers and will increase net sales. In Canada, approximately one-fifth of the smokers are non-daily smokers. These individuals buying milk at a convenience store are presented with a vast display of cigarettes at the cash register. The power wall acts as a stimulus and could result in a purchase that, but for that display, would not have occurred.

Quitting smoking is extremely difficult due to the addictive nature of cigarettes and other tobacco products. Seeing this display might result in an impulse purchase and could be the difference between an individual being a smoker or remaining an ex-smoker. The most important benefit of restructuring point-of-purchase advertising is that it will eliminate a physical stimulus for young people. It will ensure that the overall smoking rate in Manitoba will decline, as virtually all smokers begin smoking before the age of 18. It is precisely at this time in a person's life when they are seeking independence that they are most vulnerable to societal influences.

Most people regret certain choices they made in their youth. All smokers regret their decision to begin smoking. This law is an important step to protect our youth from beginning to smoke. The tobacco industry contends that its point-of-presence advertising is only directed to current smokers. Imagine Pepsi arguing that it directs its advertising only at current soft drink drinkers. It is hard to believe that consumers of all ages are not influenced in some way by point-of-presence advertising every time they buy something at a convenience store.

ImpacTeen, a group from the University of Illinois, indicated in a study that there is growing evidence that cigarette advertising and promotion increases youth smoking, and that youth are more responsive to cigarette advertising than adults. Let us face it. Advertising works. It increases profitability. Money spent on marketing efforts ensures a satisfactory return, or there would be no advertising. Point-of-purchase displays are in-your-face marketing that encourages children and youth to experiment with and initiate regular use of cigarettes. It deters current smokers from quitting. It prompts former smokers to give in to temptation. It encourages consumption by serving as an external stimulus to smoke. Children are vulnerable. They are highly influenced by advertising, and they remember the messages. Young people use cigarettes as social crutches to deal with social acceptance and with adolescent stresses. They believe they will not become addicted.

According to a United Kingdom report, young people in particular should not be exposed to tobacco advertising or to the images associated with sports promotion or other forms of indirect advertising. These counteract public health messages, undermine proper understanding of the real size of the hazard, and promote the social acceptability of cigarette smoking. There is a societal responsibility to reduce the cultural significance of tobacco use in the eyes of young people. You have the power to make a difference and remove this influential tool from making its impact on the potential starters. Right now, in convenience stores, tobacco products have the same status as milk, bread and candy. Any type of cigarette promotion implies that the use of cigarettes is desirable, presumably harmless, and adds to the cultural acceptability of smoking. The Canadian Cancer Society urges you to pass and implement Bill 37 as quickly as possible. I would also like to note that we have provided to the members of the committee to consider a few recommendations that might fine-tune the bill. Thank you for your commitment to the people of Manitoba.

Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): As I have indicated, thank you for your presentation, and to all presenters, and we will also take a look at the item. I just alert all the members, there are some proposed amendments that are also part of the package. Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation.

The next presenter is Doctor Barwinsky, Manitoba Medical Association, Professor Emeritus, Department of Surgery, Cardiac Surgery, University of Manitoba. Please proceed.

Mr. Jaroslaw Barwinsky (Manitoba Medical Association): Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I wish to thank you for the privilege to participate in this meeting today. My name is Jaroslaw Barwinsky and I am Professor Emeritus, Department of Cardiac Surgery, University of Manitoba. I am also a