Contact=20 Us | Employment=20 | Glossary = | Site=20 Map

Home > Committ= ees=20 > Committee=20 Transcripts > Standing Committee on Justice Policy - - Bill 155, = Tobacco=20 Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, 2009

Members=20 (MPPs)

Current=20 MPPs

Pa= st=20 & Present MPPs

Bills=20 & Lawmaking

Cu= rrent=20 Parliament

Past = &=20 Present

Debates=20 & Proceedings

Debates=20 (Hansard)

Le= gislative=20 Proceedings

Committ= ees=20

Current=20 Committees

Committee=20 Transcripts

= Getting=20 Involved

Contact=20 an MPP

Participation=20 in Committees

Use=20 of Assembly Grounds

Petitions<= /A>=20

Visitor=20 Information

Tours = & Events

The=20 Gift Shop

Observe=20 Parliament in Session

= Location=20 & Parking

Hour= s=20 & Services

Learning=20 & Teaching

Curriculum=20 Resources

School=20 Tours

Legislative=20 Page Program

Legislative Internship = Program=20

Office = of the Legislative Assembly

Committee Transcripts: Standing Committee on Justice Policy - May = 07, 2009 -=20 Bill 155, Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, 2009 =

07-MAY-2009_JP016.htm = HTML=20 | PDF

Print Friendly Version

STANDING COMMITTEE ON
JUSTICE = POLICY

COMIT=C9 PERMANENT
DE LA JUSTICE

Thursday 7 May 2009 Jeudi 7 mai 2009

SUBCOMMITTEE=20 REPORT

TOBACCO=20 DAMAGES
AND HEALTH CARE COSTS
RECOVERY ACT, 2009
LOI DE 2009 = SUR LE=20 RECOUVREMENT
DU MONTANT DES DOMMAGES
ET DU CO=DBT DES SOINS DE = SANT=C9=20
IMPUTABLES AU TABAC

CANADIAN=20 CANCER SOCIETY,
ONTARIO DIVISION

NON-SMOKERS'=20 RIGHTS ASSOCIATION

ONTARIO=20 CAMPAIGN
FOR ACTION ON TOBACCO

IMPERIAL=20 TOBACCO CANADA

HEART=20 AND STROKE FOUNDATION
OF ONTARIO

The committee met at 1402 in = committee room=20 1.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo=20 Berardinetti): I'd like to call this meeting to order. Good = afternoon,=20 and welcome everybody to the Standing Committee on Justice Policy. On = today's=20 agenda, we'r e dealing with Bill 155, An Act to permit the Province to = recover=20 damages and health care costs incurred because of tobacco related = diseases and=20 to make a complementary amendment to the Limitations Act, 2002.

SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo=20 Berardinetti): The first item on the agenda is the report of = the=20 subcommittee dated April 24, 2009. Mr. Leal?

Mr. Jeff Leal: I = think Mr.=20 Rinaldi's going to move it.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo=20 Berardinetti): Mr. Rinaldi?

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: = Your=20 subcommittee on committee business met on Friday, April 24, 2009, to = consider=20 the method of proceeding on Bill 155, An Act to permit the Province to = recover=20 damages and health care costs incurred because of tobacco related = diseases and=20 to make a complementary amendment to the Limitations Act, 2002, and = recommends=20 the following:

(1) That the committee hold one day = of public=20 hearings at Queen's Park on Thursday, May 7, 2009, during its regularly=20 scheduled afternoon meeting time.

(2) That the committee clerk, with = the=20 authorization of the Chair, post information regarding the committee's = business=20 as soon as possible on the Ontario parliamentary channel and the = committee's=20 website.

(3) That interested people who wish = to be=20 considered to make an oral presentation on Bill 155 should contact the = committee=20 clerk by 12 noon, Friday, May 1, 2009.

(4) That groups and individuals be = offered 15=20 minutes in which to make a presentation.

(5) That on Friday, May 1, 2009, the = committee=20 clerk provide the subcommittee members with an electronic list of all = requests=20 to appear.

(6) That if all groups can be = scheduled, the=20 committee clerk, in consultation with the Chair, be authorized to = schedule all=20 interested parties.

(7) That, if all groups cannot be = scheduled,=20 each of the subcommittee members provide the committee clerk with a = prioritized=20 list of names of witnesses they would like to hear from by 4 p.m., = Friday, May=20 1, 2009, and that these witnesses must be selected from the original = list=20 distributed by the committee clerk to the subcommittee members.

(8) That the deadline for written = submissions be=20 5 p.m., Wednesday, May 6, 2009.

(9) That legislative research = prepare a brief=20 paper on the rationale for the legislation.

(10) That the committee determine = the deadline=20 for filing amendments on Thursday, May 7, 2009.

(11) That the committee meet for one = day of=20 clause-by-clause consideration on Thursday, May 14, 2009, in the = afternoon. If=20 there are few witnesses scheduled, the committee may consider beginning=20 clause-by-clause consideration on May 7, 2009.

(12) That the committee clerk, in = consultation=20 with the Chair, be authorized, prior to the passage of the report of the = subcommittee, to commence making any preliminary arrangements necessary = to=20 facilitate the committee's proceedings.

That's your subcommittee report, = Chair.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo=20 Berardinetti): Thank you. Any discussion?

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: = Chair, knowing=20 that there are only four deputants today, and as discussed in your = subcommittee=20 report, number 11, I wonder whether we will be able to give = consideration to the=20 clause-by-clause today. I see Mr. Kormos nodding away.

Mr. Garfield = Dunlop: That was=20 going to be my question, Mr. Chair. I've been here 10 years now and I've = never=20 seen this happen before, where we included clause-by-clause on the day = we=20 started third reading debate. I thought we had to have prepared = amendments. How=20 do I know that someone from here may not approach my office on Monday or = Tuesday=20 with an amendment they'd like to see put forward? They'd be out of luck = if we=20 started clause-by-clause today. So you can do what you want, but I won't = be=20 supporting that.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo=20 Berardinetti): Mr. Kormos?

Mr. Peter Kormos: = I'm prepared=20 to proceed to clause-by-clause today. I don't contemplate presenting any = amendments. But if one caucus is not prepared to do that, then I think = it=20 creates a problem in terms of being fair to that caucus if it = contemplates or=20 anticipates-or even if there's a possibility of it presenting amendments = and=20 needing time to prepare.

I should tell you that I know this = was=20 considered in passing in the House leaders' meeting yesterday, and I = indicated=20 to the government House leader at that time that we, the New Democrats, = didn't=20 anticipate any amendments. I don't want to tell you that there was a = firm=20 commitment from the Conservatives. Mr. Dunlop may want to check and see = if there=20 was a commitment made by Ms. Witmer in that regard. I don't want to = speak for=20 Ms. Witmer.

1410

Mr. Garfield = Dunlop: If I may,=20 Mr. Chair-

Mr. Peter Kormos: I = don't want=20 to put you on the spot, Mr. Dunlop.

Mr. Garfield = Dunlop: It's my=20 understanding that we were not prepared to go to clause-by-clause today. = If you=20 vote me down, that's not a problem, but the reality is, we can't support = that.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo=20 Berardinetti): Go ahead, Mr. Kormos.

Mr. Peter Kormos: = If I can be=20 of assistance, the government wants to get this in third reading, = obviously, to=20 get the litigation going. What we will do, I'm telling you, is agree to, = through=20 an order of the House on consent, have this committee meet, if = necessary, even=20 before next Thursday afternoon or next Thursday to deal with = clause-by-clause,=20 if the government needs this bill earlier than June 4 for the purpose of = pursuing the litigation. I don't know whether the Conservatives are in = that=20 position or not.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo=20 Berardinetti): Mr. Rinaldi?

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: = Then I would=20 offer that we carry on. If Mr. Dunlop, at the end of the proceedings = today, is=20 prepared to rethink or whatever the case may be, then we'll deal with it = at that=20 time. I certainly don't want to jeopardize the proceedings.

Mr. Garfield = Dunlop: What I'm=20 concerned about is just the rights of people to approach me as an = elected member=20 with potential amendments over the weekend, early in the week. I thought = we had=20 planned on two days of this-the committee hearings-then clause-by-clause = next=20 week. That would have given us time to prepare amendments, if they were=20 necessary.

You guys have been here for six = years. If this=20 bill was so important to you, you could have done more work on this = earlier. I=20 don't think it's going to be the end of the world here if you have to = wait a=20 week.

Mr. Peter Kormos: = Paragraph 11=20 of the standing committee report indicates that it was agreed upon that = if there=20 are few witnesses scheduled, the committee may consider beginning=20 clause-by-clause consideration. I appreciate that it says "may," and = that gives=20 Mr. Dunlop the opportunity-or the right, in my view-t o block that. But = this=20 isn't new; this is something that the subcommittee considered way back = on April=20 24.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: = Just as a=20 final comment, I think we should carry on. I stand by the comment I made = before.=20 To Mr. Dunlop's comments about people having the opportunity to get a = hold of=20 their MPPs or the government side, this had first and second reading, = the dates=20 had been advertised, and I can tell you, just as an experience, most = people get=20 a hold of me the minute we introduce legislation to express their = opinion. But=20 anyway, I think we should carry on with dealing with these folks here = today who=20 have committed their time. At the end of that, we should revisit whether = we do=20 clause-by-clause today.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo=20 Berardinetti): Mr. Kormos?

Mr. Peter Kormos: = I'm going to=20 respond to that, because I appreciate what Mr. Rinaldi's saying, but let = me tell=20 you that most people get a hold of me-in view of how often this = government uses=20 time allocation and one-day committee hearings after the bills receive = third=20 reading, they aren't aware of it because of the haste with which this = government=20 pursues most of its legislation.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo=20 Berardinetti): So is there general consensus, then, to hold = this report=20 down until the end of the meeting? Is that-

Mr. Peter Kormos: = We can hold=20 on this. We can agree because it says "may," and in my view, "may" means = that=20 any one, single caucus can veto the pursuit of clause-by-clause.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo=20 Berardinetti): All right.

Mr. Peter Kormos: = Is that=20 fair?

Mr. Garfield = Dunlop: I thought=20 we were going to have two days of this and the clause-by-clause would be = like we=20 normally do, even if there were no amendments. But I felt that it was = fair to=20 all stakeholders, even if they thought of something over the weekend or = they=20 were reviewing something after what they heard today-they may want to = get a hold=20 of any one of us, and that would give them an opportunity to make an = amendment,=20 contact one of us and we could make a formal amendment to legislative = counsel=20 and prepare it for next week. That was my intention. I'm not going to = change on=20 that. You can talk until you're blue in the face, but that's the = position that=20 I'm going to take as the representative on this committee.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo=20 Berardinetti): Mr. Rinaldi?

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: = I'm prepared=20 to vote on the subcommittee report. Maybe we'll stand down number 11 and = decide=20 on that at the end.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo=20 Berardinetti): No, we don't need to. I think there's a solution = here,=20 and that is, we can vote on this now and then at the end of public = deputations,=20 we can have a subcommittee meeting afterwards.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: = That's=20 fair.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo=20 Berardinetti): Is that okay? Or a motion to go into = clause-by-clause,=20 and if that's defeated or someone's opposed to it-

Mr. Peter Kormos: = Now, wait=20 just a minute. I'm indicating that I believe that Mr. Dunlop has a right = to=20 block a proceeding to clause-by-clause.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo=20 Berardinetti): Yes.

Mr. Peter Kormos: = I'm prepared=20 to vote on this. I agree that we can go to clause-by-clause because I = don't have=20 any amendments to propose. But if the government is going to use its = majority to=20 overcome or deny Mr. Dunlop his right to defer clause-by-clause, then we = should=20 be told now, because he may want to talk to this issue longer or he may = want to=20 ask for a 20-minute recess on the recorded vote on the acceptance of the = subcommittee report.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo=20 Berardinetti): But it does say in here, though, that it may = consider=20 clause-by-clause. If we adopt this and if you at the end, Mr. Dunlop, = feel that=20 you need time, I think there would probably be some motion or some=20 indication-

Mr. Garfield = Dunlop: Mr. Chair,=20 all I can say is that it may say "may," but you know what? I want the = option, as=20 a member of this committee, to be able to accept clause-by-clause = amendments up=20 until one or two days into the beginning of next week. If that's not = possible=20 and I'm voted down, I accept that. I'l l vote on the clause-by-clause = now and=20 I'll support the amendment, but I'm not going to support going to=20 clause-by-clause this afternoon.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo=20 Berardinetti): Mr. Rinaldi?

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: = Chair, if I=20 may, I think if Mr. Dunlop feels so strongly-and I respect that-then = we'll=20 proceed and deal with clause-by-clause next week.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo=20 Berardinetti): Why don't we vote on this, and if we need to = make a=20 motion after the deputations, then we can do that, okay? Because we do = have=20 other business at 3:20. So we have the subcommittee report in front of = us. All=20 those in favour? Opposed? That carries.

TOBACCO DAMAGES
AND HEALTH CARE COSTS =
RECOVERY=20 ACT, 2009
LOI DE 2009 SUR LE RECOUVREMENT
DU MONTANT DES = DOMMAGES
ET=20 DU CO=DBT DES SOINS DE SANT=C9
IMPUTABLES AU TABAC

Consideration of Bill 155, An Act to = permit the=20 Province to recover damages and health care costs incurred because of = tobacco=20 related diseases and to make a complementary amendment to the = Limitations Act,=20 2002 / Projet de loi 155, Loi autorisant la province =E0 recouvrer le = montant des=20 dommages et du co=FBt des soins de sant=E9 engag=E9s en raison des = maladies li=E9es au=20 tabac et =E0 apporter une modification compl=E9mentaire =E0 la Loi de = 2002 sur la=20 prescription des actions.

CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY,
ONTARIO = DIVISION

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo=20 Berardinetti): We now move on to our first deputation. = Deputations are=20 going to be 15 minutes long. We will ask questions in any time that's = not used=20 on up a rotating basis.

The first deputation is the Canadian = Cancer=20 Society. I want to welcome Irene Gallagher Jones and Andrew Noble from = the=20 Canadian Cancer Society. Thank you for being here today.

Ms. Irene Gallagher = Jones: Mr.=20 Chairman and members of the committee, good afternoon. Thank you for the = opportunity to present to you today supporting Bill 155, the Tobacco = Damages and=20 Health Care Costs Recovery Act. My name is Irene Gallagher Jones, senior = manager, public issues, and I am with the Canadian Cancer Society, = Ontario=20 division. Presenting with me is Andrew Noble, senior coordinator, public = issues.

The Canadian Cancer Society is = pleased to fully=20 support Bill 155. If passed, this bill will be another tremendous = achievement in=20 tobacco control for the government of Ontario.

The Supreme Court of Canada = determined that this=20 type of legislation is valid. In September 2005, the Supreme Court of = Canada=20 unanimously found British Columbia's Tobacco Damages and Health Care = Costs=20 Recovery Act constitutional. Bill 155 will facilitate the ability of the = government of Ontario to take legal action against the tobacco industry = for the=20 benefit of all Ontarians. Not only will a lawsuit potentially lead to = the=20 recovery of health care costs due to tobacco-related illness, but it = will also=20 further advance tobacco control efforts in Ontario.

I would like to begin by = highlighting the=20 current burden of cancer in Ontario and, more specifically, the impact = that=20 tobacco has on cancer.

As you may know, cancer is a leading = health=20 issue in Ontario, and while cancer treatments have improved and = mortality rates=20 have fallen, cancer incidence is expected to increase drastically due to = Ontario's aging and growing population. It is estimated that by 2020, = cancer=20 cases in Canada will increase by two thirds. Approximately 65,000 = Ontarians will=20 be diagnosed with cancer and 27,400 deaths from cancer will occur in = 2009. More=20 specifically, tobacco is a major cause of cancer morbidity and = mortality.=20 Smoking causes 30% of all cancers and 30% of cancer deaths. Tobacco is=20 responsible for 85% of lung cancers and 13,000 Ontarians die every year = from=20 smoking.

As mentioned, legal action against = the tobacco=20 industry provides significant benefits to all Ontarians. These benefits = include=20 justice, truth, compensation and health. Andrew and I will review these = benefits=20 for the committee. If members would like further information, please = refer to=20 our written submission.

1420

Bill 155 creates an opportunity for = justice=20 through the courts. Through its fraud and negligence, such as = advertising to=20 youth and failing to warn consumers, the tobacco industry has caused or=20 contributed to the deaths of tens of thousands of Ontarians. In 1995, = the=20 Supreme Court of Canada concluded that the tobacco industry had = advertised to=20 underage youth.

Although the link between smoking = and lung=20 cancer was first published in 1950, no warnings were placed on = cigarettes in=20 Canada until 1972. The industry fought successive rounds of improved = federal=20 warnings, implemented in 1989, 1994 and 2001. The tens of thousands of=20 Ontarians, and their families, who have suffered due to tobacco-related = illness=20 deserve justice.

Mr. Andrew Noble: A = lawsuit=20 following the passage of Bill 155 will provide Ontarians with the truth = about=20 the tobacco industry. Hidden information about the Canadian tobacco = industry may=20 be revealed through a lawsuit. Through the discovery process and court=20 submissions, lawsuits in other jurisdictions have revealed documents = about the=20 tobacco industry's activities, including deceptive marketing strategies. = As a=20 result of the Master Settlement Agreement, MSA, in the United States, = the=20 tobacco industry was required to publish and index this type of = information on a=20 website at their expense.

Information revealed about the = tobacco=20 industry could be effectively used in youth tobacco control projects. = Research=20 has shown that to reach youth, it is useful to illustrate the lengths = that the=20 tobacco industry has gone to deceive and manipulate them. For example, = Florida's=20 Truth campaign from 1998-2000 included information about the tobacco = industry's=20 marketing activities. The campaign achieved considerable success, as the = number=20 of middle school students who tried smoking in the previous 30 days = dropped from=20 18.5% to 11.1% in just two years. The Canadian Cancer Society believes = that=20 information about the Canadian tobacco industry's marketing practices = could be=20 used to enhance youth-oriented tobacco control initiatives here in = Ontario.

Another significant benefit of = legal action=20 against the tobacco industry is compensation. The tobacco industry = manufactures=20 and markets a product that places an enormous burden on the health care = system.=20 The citizens of Ontario are entitled to compensation. Although it is = premature=20 to put a figure on the extent of a settlement or a judgment, considering = that=20 tobacco use is estimated to cost the health care system $1.6 billion = annually,=20 it is conceivable that a successful lawsuit against the tobacco industry = could=20 represent the recovery of billions of dollars for the government of = Ontario.

Ms. Irene Gallagher = Jones:=20 Significant public health benefits can be achieved through a lawsuit = against the=20 tobacco industry. If the tobacco industry's financial situation and = assets such=20 as trademarks are threatened through a lawsuit, they are likely to = negotiate=20 with government on further marketing restrictions. For example, the = Master=20 Settlement Agreement in the US banned the use of Joe Camel and other = cartoons in=20 packaging and promotion.

Although many of the gains in the = Master=20 Settlement Agreement have already been established in Ontario and Canada = through=20 laws like the Smoke-Free Ontario Act and the federal Tobacco Act, there = are=20 numerous additional restrictions on the industry's behaviour which could = be=20 enacted as part of an Ontario settlement.

In conclusion, the Canadian Cancer = Society=20 views the tobacco industry as a unique contributor to cancer. As an = industry,=20 their role has been to profit from a product that, when used according = to the=20 manufacturer's instructions, is responsible for 85% of lung cancers. = Bill 155 is=20 the first step in holding the tobacco industry accountable for its = actions. The=20 passage of Bill 155 and subsequent legal action against the industry = will help=20 contribute to the achievement of the Canadian Cancer Society's mission = of=20 creating a world where no Canadian fears cancer.

Once again, we would like to thank = the=20 committee members for the opportunity to appear today.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo=20 Berardinetti): Thank you. There are about seven minutes; about = two to=20 three minutes per party. We'll start with the Liberal Party.

Mr. David Zimmer: = Thank you=20 very much for your thoughtful presentation.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo=20 Berardinetti): We'll move to Mr. Dunlop.

Mr. Garfield = Dunlop: It's a=20 very interesting process to go through with this. I know it has happened = in a=20 few of the states, and some of the other provinces have made moves in = the=20 direction to recoup some health care costs from the tobacco companies = etc. I=20 guess there are two questions I'd like to ask. One is: In Canada, I'm = not aware=20 of the successes of any of the provincial governments with this type of=20 legislation. That's the one question, because I don't want to take a lot = of time=20 speaking. I'm curious also on other causes of cancer, whether it may be = some=20 kind of drinking, or toxins in the air: Do you feel that the government = of=20 Ontario should follow the same type of process-if they're successful at = some=20 point in convicting the tobacco companies, do you think there's a = possibility or=20 should they go after other businesses, other corporations that might = cause some=20 other impact on someone's health?

Ms. Irene Gallagher = Jones: To=20 your first question, yes, other provinces have begun the process of = suing the=20 tobacco industry. British Columbia and New Brunswick both have filed = lawsuits.=20 There has been a lot of work done in BC to set the stage for Ontario in = terms of=20 the success of those lawsuits because they haven't been fully completed. = There=20 isn't much more to add unless Andrew has any more to add.

Mr. Andrew Noble: = Just to go=20 back to the point that Irene made in the presentation, this type of = legislation=20 has been determined to be valid by the Supreme Court of Canada. So in = that=20 sense, there has been work done on this.

Ms. Irene Gallagher = Jones: In=20 terms of your second question, there are many risk factors and = contributors to=20 cancer. Tobacco is one of the most significant and is why the Canadian = Cancer=20 Society has been advocating for tobacco control measures for many years. = As I=20 mentioned, taking this sort of step to move forward with legal action = against=20 the tobacco industry is important because the tobacco industry is a = unique=20 contributor to cancer. They're the only products on the market that, = when used=20 as directed, cause 85% of lung cancers. So I agree with you that there = are other=20 areas to look at, but this particular approach is a measure that is = designed to=20 provide Ontarians with justice-those who have suffered tobacco-related = illness=20 and the family members who have suffered as well.

Mr. Garfield = Dunlop: A quick=20 question: If BC has moved in a positive direction in their legislation, = should=20 we be waiting on the outcome of their court hearings before we move = forward?

Ms. Irene Gallagher = Jones: As=20 mentioned, there has been a lot of heavy lifting done in BC that has = really=20 paved the way for Ontario to move forward with swift action to a lawsuit = in=20 Ontario.

Mr. Andrew Noble: = The sooner=20 the Ontario government gets moving on this, the sooner we will have = results.=20 There's no sense waiting; it's time to start.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo=20 Berardinetti): Mr. Kormos.

Mr. Peter Kormos: = Thank you,=20 folks. Ms. Nader is standing at the door compelling my attendance in her = office.=20 A certain Ruby Dhalla and some nannies and a Minister of Labour and the = media=20 interest are cramping your style here. So I'm going to be absent for a = bit.

New Democrats are supporting the = legislation;=20 it's going to pass before June 4. But let's understand: This is not the=20 romanticized David-and-Goliath civil litigation that we witnessed in the = States=20 where the victim's family gets to sue the tobacco company and the = lawyers rip=20 the butt off the tobacco company and award multi-million-dollar damages. = That's=20 justice. This is largely symbolic. It's going to involve lawyers making = millions=20 of dollars. Success will depend upon the courts. Ideally, midway = through, the=20 tobacco companies would sit down with the governments and settle it. But = the=20 governments are going to be fearful of looking weak and not pushing it = to the=20 wall, and the tobacco companies are not going to want to give any = quarter.=20 That's part of the problem, so here we are.

Ms. Irene Gallagher = Jones: As=20 we've mentioned, Ontarians who have suffered-and the Canadian Cancer = Society is=20 the voice for cancer. We are here to say that a lawsuit will provide = justice and=20 discussion about it in the media, in the public, through the courts. = Even, as=20 you say, if it's not an individual, it will provide that feeling of = justice=20 being served in Ontario.

1430

Mr. Peter Kormos: = I'd sooner=20 see people go to jail, quite frankly, but that's not going to happen = either, is=20 it? Thank you, folks.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo=20 Berardinetti): Thank you for your presentation.

NON-SMOKERS' RIGHTS ASSOCIATION

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo=20 Berardinetti): We will move on to the next deputation, which is = the=20 Non-Smokers' Rights Association, Garfield Mahood.

Again, the same general rule: 15 = minutes; you=20 can use all the time as you see fit. Any time that you don't use up, = we'll put=20 towards questions. Good afternoon, and welcome.

Mr. Garfield = Mahood: Thanks=20 very much, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. Thank you for inviting = me to=20 address the committee on the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs = Recovery=20 Act.

I'm here wearing two hats. As = executive=20 director of the Non-Smokers' Rights Association, we've had an interest = in=20 litigation and accountability for the tobacco industry for a number of = years. I=20 run a national non-profit health agency with offices in Ottawa, Montreal = and=20 Toronto, and this is certainly a primary interest of our organization. = I'm also=20 here in a way representing the Campaign for Justice on Tobacco Fraud, = and in the=20 materials handed out to you, you'll see a letter that was addressed to = Premier=20 McGuinty about a year ago that addresses this issue. I'll come back to = that=20 particular letter. Anything I say on behalf of the people who signed = that letter=20 is contained in the letter. They're not responsible for the additional = comments=20 that I will put before the committee.

My compliments to the government. = It took a=20 while to persuade the government to get involved in the litigation, but = the=20 government has, and this government has shown real leadership on tobacco = issues.=20 I want to compliment the Attorney General for taking a different path = than his=20 predecessor and finally coming forward with this legislation. Frankly, = we hope=20 that the passage of this legislation will go a long way to setting up a = national=20 litigation effort, which is really what is needed.

I want to tell the committee, = because it is=20 not well known, a little bit about what led up to the American states, = Canadian=20 provinces and jurisdictions throughout the world suing the tobacco = industry over=20 fraud, negligence, conspiracy and a number of other unsavoury = activities. Let's=20 be blunt. Let's take it right back to the beginning. It started in a = room in=20 1953 at the Plaza Hotel in New York. When CBC national television news = did its=20 outstanding documentary on the tobacco industry, the opening scene was a = photo=20 of this hotel, where one of the most horrendous meetings in the history = of=20 business or public health ever took place. The heads of major tobacco = companies=20 met with John Hill of Hill and Knowlton, and they mapped out a campaign = in 1953=20 that would confuse the public, that would attack the science and indeed = would=20 even attack the scientists.

That campaign to create a belief = that there=20 was controversy over the risks of tobacco, that campaign to discredit = the=20 scientists who were putting forward information in the interests of = public=20 health, led ultimately to millions of deaths and decades of deception by = the=20 tobacco industry. How bad was that? Frankly, as a result of the = activities of=20 the industry, the World Health Organization predicted some time ago that = the=20 tobacco industry would kill 500 million people on this planet presently = alive.=20 Most of the marketing of the industry was constructed on that fraud. = Phil Hilts=20 of the New York Times, who got some of the original documents on this, = said,=20 "There is no case like it in the annals of business or health."

Someone a moment or two ago asked = the=20 question, "Shouldn't we look at other industries?" My response is that = with five=20 million people dying every year, 37,000 of them in Canada, if somebody = has some=20 idea about another industry that is engaged in this kind of activity, = this kind=20 of wrongful behaviour, if somebody knows of an industry that is behaving = like=20 that, be my guest and go after them with all gloves off, with everything = available to governments. Go after them passionately and make sure they = are the=20 recipients of civil sanctions and the criminal justice system. There is = nothing=20 like the tobacco industry in the history of business.

The disinformation campaign = involved lying=20 about the risks of addiction, lying about the risks of second-hand = smoke, lying=20 about targeting to kids, lying about virtually every aspect of their = business,=20 including "light" and " mild." This is unsavoury business.

Let me tell you what the reaction = was when it=20 was discovered what this industry had been up to. Justice is a major = component=20 of the purpose of this bill. The disinformation campaign was so bad that = when=20 the Minnesota government had the courage to take these people into court = and the=20 industry was faced with a choice, after it had gone through the jury = process and=20 the jury was about to go out and deliberate, the industry, rather than = risk the=20 wrath of the jury, settled for US$6.3 billion. That, in Canadian dollars = at the=20 time, was $10 billion. When you adjust for the differences in population = between=20 Minnesota and Ontario, the Minnesota settlement in Ontario would have = been $1=20 billion a year for 25 years. The same behaviour has gone on on both = sides of the=20 border.

Forty-six states sued-as Mr. = Perley will tell=20 you, I'm sure, later and go into detail-46 states came in, making a = total of 50=20 that ultimately held the industry to account. The settlement was close = to C$400=20 billion. In the lawsuit over this same fraud, Judge Gladys Kessler, in = the=20 United States Attorney General v. Philip Morris et al, including the = parents of=20 some of the Canadian companies, wrote-this quote is in the booklet on = page 18=20 that's in the package handed out to you. This quote by this federal = court judge=20 is so delicious, I have to read it:

"Put more colloquially," she says, = "and less=20 legalistically, over the course of more than 50 years, Defendants lied,=20 misrepresented, and deceived the American public, including smokers and = the=20 young people they avidly sought as 'replacement smokers,' about the = devastating=20 health effects of smoking and environmental tobacco smoke, they = suppressed=20 research, they destroyed documents, they manipulated the use of nicotine = so as=20 to increase and perpetuate addiction, they distorted the truth about low = tar and=20 light cigarettes so as to discourage smokers from quitting, and they = abused the=20 legal system in order to achieve their goal-to make money with little, = if any,=20 regard for individual illness and suffering, soaring health costs, or = the=20 integrity of the legal system....

"In this case, the evidence of = Defendants'=20 fraud is so overwhelming that it easily meets the clear and convincing = standard=20 of proof."

So you see, when we come here = today and praise=20 the government for finally deciding to hold the industry to account, one = of the=20 things we did in order to try to engage the Ontario government was to = send the=20 letter that was sent to Premier McGuinty in 2008, almost a year ago to = this=20 time. In that letter-by the way, I commend this letter to you. It was = signed by=20 Dr. Mary Jane Ashley, professor emeritus at the University of Toronto, = who was=20 Elizabeth Witmer's-she was the head of the expert panel that made=20 recommendations on the revision of the Ontario tobacco strategy.

1440

Roy Cameron, the executive = director of the=20 Canadian Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute of Canada, = signed that=20 letter. Paul Garfinkel, the CEO of the Centre for Addiction and Mental = Health,=20 signed that letter. More than 20 medical officers of health in Ontario = signed=20 that letter that you have in your hands. The former medical officer of = health=20 for the province of Ontario signed that letter: Richard Schabas. Fraser = Mustard,=20 probably one of the most pre-eminent health professionals in the = country, the=20 founding president of the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, = signed that=20 letter, as did the dean of law at Osgoode Hall Law School. What did they = say? In=20 effect, the letter says it would be unthinkable for any government to = allow an=20 industry that is responsible for the deaths of approximately 400,000 = Ontarians=20 to not hold an industry to account that is responsible for that kind of=20 behaviour. It is unthinkable that civil remedies and criminal = prosecution would=20 escape these people.

The second thing they made a point = of is cost=20 recovery. In terms of stewardship, people have mentioned here the cost = of=20 lawyers. So what if it costs a few million dollars for lawyers? We are = talking=20 about billions of dollars. The Conservative government estimated that = the claim=20 from Ontario would be in excess of $40 billion. What person investing = his money=20 wouldn't invest a few million in order to recover billions? The = stewardship=20 wouldn't be there if you didn't do that, and too bad if some lawyers = make some=20 money in the process.

Deterrents: What message do you = send about=20 deterrents if you don't hold this industry accountable? There is no = other way.=20 Individuals can't do that in Canada. The Supreme Court limitations don't = allow=20 the lawyers to get involved and go after the industry. So it's the = provinces=20 that have to do it. Cost recovery is absolutely critical. = Deterrents.

Health benefits were mentioned by = the Canadian=20 Cancer Society. The disclosure of documents in the American litigation = was=20 probably the biggest health gain the Americans had in the 1990s: 30 = million=20 tobacco industry documents pushed out into the public domain. This is = incredibly=20 important.

Public education: You can spend = all the money=20 you want on public education. I was chair of the media campaign for the = federal=20 Minister of Health. I know a little bit about these media campaigns. I = was an=20 adviser to the Massachusetts campaign for a period of time. Let me tell = you,=20 those media campaigns struggle to have an impact. But you get this = lawsuit going=20 and the public information that will spill from that will be the most = important=20 mass-media campaign that we've seen in this country in a long time.

The final thing, because I'm = nearly out of=20 time: Sharing the costs of litigation is important. This has to be a = national=20 litigation effort. It's not Ontario beating BC; it's a matter of the = provinces=20 getting together and doing the job, the heavy lifting, together and = Ontario=20 should be involved.

Finally, I have to say something, = because we=20 have the tobacco folks-by the way, in your booklet I refer you to the = first five=20 or six pages. The title of this book is What do the Smoke Folk have in = Common=20 with Organized Crime: or Taking the Normal out of an Industry that = Kills. Why=20 did we make the reference to organized crime? Because the US litigation = was=20 based on the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, which = was set=20 up to deal with the Mafia. The legal experts advised the US states and = the=20 federal US Attorney General that the same construct was going on with = respect to=20 how the tobacco industry managed this issue.

The tobacco guys will come in here = today and=20 they will say one of the things that we've heard them say before: that = the=20 government is senior partners with the tobacco industry, because they're = making=20 money off taxes. So they'r e senior partners. Let me tell you, I know of = no=20 government in this country that committed fraud that is responsible for = 37,000=20 deaths a year, that has killed more than one million Canadians in the = last five=20 decades because of this fraud.

So I commend this legislation to = you. I praise=20 the government for finally engaging. We encourage the opposition parties = to come=20 together and make sure that they go after this industry with the = determination=20 that this industry merits.

Thank you very much.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo=20 Berardinetti): Thank you. That pretty well uses up your time, = unless=20 anyone had a quick point to make, because it was about 15 minutes = long.

Thank you, Mr. Mahood, for your=20 presentation.

Mr. Garfield = Mahood: Thank=20 you for listening.

ONTARIO CAMPAIGN
FOR ACTION ON = TOBACCO

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo=20 Berardinetti): We'll move on, then, to our next deputation, the = Ontario=20 Campaign for Action on Tobacco, Michael Perley.

Mr. Michael = Perley: Thank=20 you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Thank you very much for = the=20 opportunity to also support Bill 155.

The founding members of our = campaign-the=20 Canadian Cancer Society, Heart and Stroke Foundation, and Non-Smokers' = Rights=20 Association, which are here with you today; as well as the Lung = Association and=20 the Ontario Medical Association- fully support the government's = intention to=20 bring the tobacco industry to account for its decades-long campaign, = which Gar=20 has so eloquently described, to resist serious efforts to control the = spread of=20 the disease epidemic caused by its products.

Many of these industry strategies = and tactics=20 are described, as Gar said and as others have said, in its own = documents, now on=20 the public record in the US and elsewhere, some of which refer to = Canada. We=20 look forward to much more documentation of this type becoming available = here as=20 a result of the government's action, for the reasons Gar said: a public=20 education campaign, the likes of which no government has mounted in the = history=20 of tobacco control.

I'd like to give you a little bit = of a sense,=20 more directly, of the industry described in these documents, and I want = to=20 briefly quote from two of them.

The first is from R.J. Reynolds = and states:=20 "Studies of clinical data tend to confirm the relationship between heavy = and=20 prolonged tobacco smoking and incidence of cancer of the lung."

This conclusion is no surprise, = you may say.=20 Some have suggested that we're all very familiar with such facts today. = The=20 industry acknowledges that the use of its products carries risks, and = it's=20 heavily taxed, so why litigate?

The answer is partly, at least, = that this=20 statement dates from 1953. You'll recall Gar's reference to the = deliberate=20 campaign that was launched in 1953 to obfuscate this and other effects = of=20 tobacco industry product use. This was shortly before the industry = consciously=20 launched an international campaign to deny, hide and otherwise = misrepresent=20 these and many related health impact findings. I won't go over again the = hundreds of thousands of deaths-if not millions-that have been caused = worldwide=20 by this.

Our society, especially our health = care=20 system, began paying the costs of this industry behaviour decades ago, = long=20 before there was any significant taxation of industry products and long = before=20 there was any widespread consensus on the dangers represented by the use = of=20 industry products, either by first-hand smoking or through exposure to=20 second-hand smoke, which has been, of course, a focus of the present=20 government's very significant and successful smoke-free Ontario = strategy.

For the second quotation I'd like = to mention,=20 I'll ask you to recall-and I think you've probably all seen it-the image = of US=20 tobacco executives testifying to the US Congress in April 1994, with = their hands=20 raised, that nicotine was not addictive. They each repeated this, = following=20 questions from subcommittee chair Henry Waxman.

Contrast this with the following = statement=20 from US tobacco giant Brown and Williamson, today owned by British = American=20 Tobacco, which also owns Canada's Imperial Tobacco: "Nicotine is = addictive. We=20 are, then, in the business of selling nicotine, an addictive drug." This = statement dates from 1963 and helps us understand what the industry = knew, and=20 when it knew it, about nicotine addiction in truth, which has kept = hundreds of=20 thousands of Ontario smokers chained to what proved to be, for them, a = fatal=20 addiction. It is another excellent illustration of why Ontario needs the = litigation enabled by Bill 155.

When we think of lawsuits based on = legislation=20 of this type, we inevitably focus, and quite understandably, on the = potential=20 financial recovery from the industry. To give you a little additional = sense of=20 the order of magnitude potentially involved here, I want to mention the = four US=20 states, which settled individually with the industry in advance of the = US Master=20 Settlement Agreement of 1999. Gar has already mentioned Minnesota. Other = individual states settling included Mississippi, Florida and Texas. The = total=20 population of those four states is just over 40 million people, which is = maybe a=20 little less than 25%-more like 20%-larger than Ontario. They settled out = of=20 court for a total of US$36.6 billion.

1450

As you've heard, the entire Master = Settlement=20 Agreement reached with the industry in 1999 totalled $246 billion, = payable over=20 approximately 25 years. It's important to again emphasize that this kind = of=20 recovery, if successful in Ontario, has nothing to do with recent or = current=20 taxation rates, which neither redress past wrongs nor come close to = covering=20 current provincial annual health care expenditures on tobacco-induced = disease.=20 I'm not speaking here at all of the broader impacts of forgone income = and lost=20 productivity on people suffering from tobacco-induced illness and on = employers=20 employing them, which usually amounts to two to three times the health = care=20 cost.

What I'd also like to emphasize, = though, and=20 others have mentioned this, is that the MSA led to a settlement which = included=20 many of what we call non-monetary tobacco control provisions, which were = enacted=20 to rein in the industry's destructive behaviour and avoid incurring = future=20 costs. The non-monetary provisions of the Master Settlement Agreement = are an=20 important illustration of what's possible through the negotiation = process when a=20 similar settlement is reached with the Canadian tobacco industry. Bill = 155 need=20 not contain such provisions itself. Rather, it paves the way for a = settlement=20 which can contain these provisions if the government insists that they = be part=20 of such a settlement.

Let me give you a few additional = illustrations=20 of the types of controls placed on the industry in the US as part of the = MSA.=20 Here are some of those provisions: a ban on certain types of outdoor=20 advertising, including billboards-we've done that in Canada; a ban on = the use of=20 cartoons, such as Joe Camel-that was mentioned earlier; and a ban on = tobacco=20 companies taking any action directly or indirectly to target youth in = the=20 advertising, promotion or marketing of tobacco products. I think it' s = certainly=20 arguable that that job is not complete here in Canada.

The MSA also prohibited the = companies from=20 taking any action the primary purpose of which was to initiate, maintain = or=20 increase youth smoking. Again, that job is not, I don't think, complete = here in=20 Canada.

The MSA prohibited tobacco = companies from=20 giving anything of value to any person or entity in exchange for = placement of a=20 product and/or endorsement of a product, such as placing certain brands = of=20 tobacco products in movies or on television shows, formerly a frequent = industry=20 practice, and there's some debate about whether it goes on today.

Participating manufacturers were = prohibited=20 from marketing, distributing or licensing apparel or merchandise bearing = a=20 tobacco product name, including catalogues and direct mail.

The settlement prohibited or = restricted the=20 companies from facilitating youth access to their products by such = tactics as=20 sale of packages with less than 20 cigarettes-we've done that here in = Ontario-or=20 distribution of gifts and free samples.

A large variety of tobacco = industry documents,=20 as you've heard, were made public and still remain available to us.

The industry-and this is very = interesting-was=20 prevented from lobbying to oppose state or local restrictions on issues = such as=20 youth access, retail sale to youth or limitations on non-tobacco = products which=20 are designed to look like tobacco products. There's a lot that we could = be doing=20 in a somewhat different vein but in a similar direction, generally, on = that=20 issue.

The American Legacy Foundation was = created to=20 support the study of and programs for the reduction of youth use of = tobacco=20 products and to support the study of and programs for the prevention of = diseases=20 associated with tobacco use. In light of the recent very significant = cuts to the=20 financing of the Ontario tobacco strategy, that could be a very = interesting=20 possibility in years to come.

Finally, a growers' trust fund was = negotiated=20 with tobacco-growing states under which the latter were eligible to = receive=20 payments in exchange for exiting the industry. That job is well under = way in=20 Canada but it's not complete in Ontario.

In Canada, the federal government = and various=20 provinces have enacted many of the above restrictions, as I mentioned.=20 Nevertheless, there are numerous additional restrictions on the = industry's=20 behaviour which could be enacted as part of an Ontario or Canadian = settlement.=20 The partners of the Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco look forward = to=20 providing their expertise and advice on these restrictions to government = at an=20 appropriate time.

Finally, again, congratulations to = the=20 government for introducing this bill, and I want to thank you for this=20 opportunity to testify in support of the bill.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo=20 Berardinetti): Thank you. There are about five minutes if = anyone has=20 any questions. We'll start with the Conservatives. Mr. Dunlop?

Mr. Garfield = Dunlop: Thank=20 you very much, Mr. Perley, for being here today and for your = comments.

I'm trying to get my head around = the American=20 legal system and the direction they went, and our Canadian system with = our=20 provincial governments all taking action at one time or another, or in = the=20 future, against tobacco companies.

I'll ask two questions here = because we don't=20 have a lot of time.

One is, and maybe the = parliamentary assistant=20 can answer this from a legal perspective: Why is this not done as a = national=20 lawsuit, as opposed to each province taking a challenge?

Second of all, I know we've done a = lot in=20 Ontario, and the Smoke-Free Ontario Act has done a lot, but we still = have a long=20 way to go. I've talked to small business people in my community who have = convenience stores. They've got these huge power walls. You can't even = see the=20 word "cigarette" anywhere. In my riding of Simcoe North, most of the = people just=20 go up to the First Nations and Wahta-there's a number of them north of = us-and=20 they can buy whatever they want. There are open smoke shops everywhere, = and=20 that's where people buy their cigarettes now.

I'm curious about what we should = do in those=20 particular cases, to combat smoking. Obviously these aren't brands that = you see=20 on the shelf behind the power walls. These are brands that are = contraband.

So I'd like to hear your comments = on that,=20 plus this national lawsuit case as well.

Mr. Michael = Perley: On the=20 national versus provincial question, the provinces administer and run = the health=20 care system and incur the expenditures that we're talking about = recovering. So I=20 think that's the short answer. There's more to it, but that's it in a=20 nutshell.

On the contraband issue, we very = strongly=20 support more action on contraband. We have not seen enough action on = contraband,=20 on the one hand. On the other hand, we've always done multiple things at = the=20 same time on tobacco control. Focusing on contraband, which is a matter = for the=20 Ministries of Revenue and Finance, and hopefully the Ministry of Health = and=20 Long-Term Care to a lesser extent, on the one hand, and litigating in = the manner=20 we're talking about by the Attorney General on the other hand, to me = shouldn't=20 be mutually exclusive.

The justice, accountability, = truth, cost=20 recovery and stewardship issues have all been outlined by Mr. Mahood. I = think=20 there's a very, very strong case there. They' ve been supported by all = 50=20 states-success in the US on the same principles, and even, in fact, more = drastic=20 principles, as Mr. Mahood outlined. So I think there is a case to answer = that=20 cries out for action there. At the same time, there's also not enough = action on=20 contraband.

On contraband, we also have a = split=20 jurisdiction between the feds and the provinces, and we have some action = that's=20 gone forward at the federal level-the RCMP's strategy; there's an=20 interdepartmental committee. We haven't seen a similar strategy of that = type=20 from the province. We need that strategy, but because that hasn't yet = been=20 completed shouldn't be a reason not to litigate and just simply focus on = contraband.

I know that tobacco companies, = particularly=20 Imperial, have been making much of the contraband issue lately. If I was = losing=20 the kind of money they're losing from contraband, I'd be complaining = too. It's=20 eating into their profit picture. That, to me, is of no consequence, and = I'm=20 sure it's of no consequence to any of my colleagues. What is of = consequence is=20 that it is undermining efforts to get people to stop smoking through tax = increases, which are the single most effective intervention against = initiation=20 and use of product by many people. We can't use tax increases in Ontario = and=20 Quebec as readily as we could, because we have a contraband problem. We = need=20 action there, but that should not preclude action on litigation.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo=20 Berardinetti): Any other questions or comments? Mr. Zimmer?

Mr. David Zimmer: = Thank you=20 very much for your thoughtful advocacy.

1500

IMPERIAL TOBACCO CANADA

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo=20 Berardinetti): We'll move on to our next deputation: Imperial = Tobacco=20 Canada, Donald McCarty.

Again, it's basically 15 minutes. = Any time=20 that you don't use, we'll set aside for questions.

Mr. Donald = McCarty: Thank=20 you, Mr. Chairman. I've taken your lead on the dress code, with your=20 permission.

We're just setting up a few slides = that we'd=20 like to show you somewhere in the middle of the presentation, so I'll = just=20 start, if that's okay with you, while we do that.

Thank you for the opportunity to = come and=20 speak to you today. My name is Don McCarty. I'm vice-president of law at = Imperial Tobacco Canada, a position I've had since 2000. I was not = present at=20 the meeting in 1953; I was six months old at the time. But I do know = that with=20 respect to that supposed secret meeting that did occur, representatives = of the=20 United States government were invited, in writing, to come. They = declined, but=20 after the meeting was over they did receive minutes of that meeting. So = perhaps=20 it's not as secret as it's made out to be.

We have prepared a formal = submission. It's=20 been distributed. I hope you take the time to read it. We took some time = in=20 preparing it.

I can no longer come before = committees such as=20 this and say that we are Canada's leading tobacco manufacturer. The = leading=20 tobacco manufacturer in this province now is the illegal tobacco = manufacturing=20 segment. Many members of the Legislature chose to speak about this issue = during=20 the debates on this bill; rightly so. The most recent information on the = illegal=20 tobacco market in Ontario is that 50% of tobacco purchased in this = province is=20 contraband. This is a staggering number. Ontario has a higher rate of = illegal=20 cigarette trade than Columbia, Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, Zimbabwe or = Nigeria, to=20 name but a few. The indication from media accounts of RCMP seizures is = that it's=20 going to get worse. Last week, they announced a seizure of 13 million = cigarettes=20 in Cornwall, one of the largest seizures they've ever done. If it had = gone=20 through to the market, this would have deprived the Ontario treasury of = over=20 $1.6 million in tobacco revenues. It's not unreasonable to assume, and = the=20 police would agree, that a similar amount of cargo evades police = regularly. This=20 is nothing short of scandalous in a developed province in a developed = country=20 and in a province and in a country that prides itself on being at the = forefront=20 of tobacco control initiatives and holds itself out as such in tobacco = control=20 forums such as the WHO's framework on tobacco control.

We have prepared a few slides to = illustrate=20 what is happening to illicit trade, to tobacco revenues and, more = alarmingly,=20 smoking rates in this province. You'll notice that none of the slides = refer to=20 our lost revenues.

The first slides tell a good = story. Ontario=20 tobacco taxes are rising in the years 2001 to 2005. The theory is that = higher=20 taxes reduce smoking prevalence. You will see from the purple line that = the=20 Canada tobacco use monitoring survey shows that smoking prevalence is = indeed=20 declining in those years. Tobacco tax revenue for the government of = Ontario is=20 also increasing in those years-more good news. Then we move to the = post-2005=20 years. Tax levels are high and remain so. Illicit trade makes its = appearance. In=20 2006, 2007 and 2008 the rates become so high that in 2008, illicit trade = is=20 almost 50% of the tobacco purchased in this province.

What happens with smoking = prevalence? Well,=20 the Canada tobacco use monitoring survey now indicates that smoking = prevalence=20 appears to be going in the wrong direction, and so is government tobacco = tax=20 revenue. The Auditor General of Ontario recently estimated the losses at = more=20 than $500 million. So what about the bill itself-sorry, I have one more = slide I=20 meant to show you.

Recently, the government of = Ontario, as you=20 know, harmonized the PST and the GST. Ordinarily what it had done was it = included the provincial GST, if you will, in the provincial tobacco = taxed. Now,=20 in the harmonized taxes coming into effect, they are no longer doing = that. This=20 leads to an effective 13% increase in the rates of tobacco taxation in = this=20 province for the coming years. Where will illicit trade go, where will = your=20 revenues go, where will smoking prevalence go, are the questions that = this graph=20 and I ask.

Bill 155, in our view, has nothing = to do with=20 tobacco control or with health; it has everything to do with money. We = need to=20 debunk some of the myths that surround these types of cases. First of = all, if=20 Ontario takes a lawsuit and it loses, well, it loses. In the United = States, more=20 than 200 cases of such kind have actually been taken to trial. All of = them have=20 resulted in verdicts for the tobacco industry for one reason or = another.

The MSA is a different story. It = was a=20 settlement. The MSA could occur because in the United States, tobacco = prices=20 were so low that the companies had room over the next 25 years of the = settlement=20 to dramatically increase their prices and fund the settlement. This is = what the=20 governments knew and accepted. They also said it allowed them to bring = all kinds=20 of regulations against the tobacco industry in the United States. The = fact of=20 the matter is that even the new regulations that the MSA put into place = in the=20 United States are laughable compared to what we have in Canada. We don't = need=20 that type of settlement, as history has shown here, to put into force = the type=20 of regulations that we have now.

If Ontario loses, it loses. If = Ontario wins a=20 case like this, it will lose even more. The industry does not have the = money to=20 pay the $40 billion that was talked about earlier. The combined = profitability,=20 after tax, of the Canadian legal tobacco industry is about half a = billion=20 dollars. Where is that money going to come from? The answer to that is = the=20 industry will have to go bankrupt. Your revenues will go south in a big = way, and=20 what will happen to smoking prevalence when the illicit tobacco = manufacturers=20 take over? We estimate that their manufacturing capacity right now and = their=20 control of the supply chain is such that they could take over the entire = market=20 in this province within a matter of days.

If Ontario goes ahead and adopts = this=20 bill-and, judging by some of the comments I've heard, I tend to feel = that it=20 will-what interest do you have in moving ahead with a lawsuit? The other = provinces have already done so. There's no advantage here in getting to = the=20 finish line before anyone else. If BC gets there first and if BC wins, = well,=20 bankruptcy will result. Just because you were first to get to the finish = line=20 doesn't mean you're entitled to any more. With the amounts that Ontario = thinks=20 it can get at $40 billion-sometimes BC puts this number at $10 billion, = but it=20 goes north and south from that. You multiply that by 10 because it's 10% = of the=20 population. The amounts of money you'r e talking about here simply don't = exist.=20 Let's get real.

If Ontario does decide to pass the = legislation, it doesn't need to move ahead with a lawsuit. It would be a = waste=20 of time; it would be a waste of money. The simple solution is to ensure = that in=20 the statute itself a clause is inserted allowing the bill to come into = force=20 upon proclamation so the government could choose a time and place when = the act=20 will come into force.

This bill is a demonstration that = the tobacco=20 control agenda has run a little bit out of steam. The problem is that it = won't=20 do anything to reduce consumption or to stop people from buying illegal=20 cigarettes or, even more importantly, to stop those who are selling = cigarettes=20 to youth at pocket-money prices. The government needs to be doing more = to stop=20 this.

The Supreme Court has, it is true, = upheld the=20 validity of a similar act in BC. In doing so, it had to declare that = there is no=20 such thing in Canada as a right to a civil fair trial. The province has = the=20 power to do away with your right to a civil trial that is fair. That is = what the=20 Supreme Court has said. That is what our Constitution said. Just because = it's=20 legal doesn't mean it's right.

The question has been put: What = about other=20 industries? They easily could turn this example to other industries. Two = of the=20 more obvious cases are gambling and alcohol. Those industries, in most = provinces=20 in Canada, are already well in the hands of government control now as it = is. So=20 where is the next industry going to come from? Fast food, perhaps; there = are=20 many candidates.

Our own view is that the way to = work now on=20 tobacco control is to work with the tobacco companies, not against us. = We're=20 willing to participate; we're willing to help. We've put forward = solutions for=20 the illicit trade problem. One of the reasons why people don't want to = address=20 this issue is that it appears to be too big to handle. We've put forward = a=20 number of steps that could be stepping stones to a solution.

1510

One of them is: For God's sake, = will you put=20 someone in charge? There is no one in charge of this file in the = government of=20 Ontario. There's no one in charge of this file in the government of = Canada. You=20 need to appoint a senior minister in charge who can rally all of the = government=20 agencies, government forces, industry, anyone you need, to control this = problem.=20 Such a person does not exist. That's the first thing that needs to be = done. That=20 person needs to be given the power and the commitment to do the job.

Then you need to enforce the laws. = There are=20 dozens of laws being violated on a daily basis by the illegal tobacco=20 manufacturers. You just have to drive through any reserve to see them. = Promotion=20 is flagrant. Discounting is everywhere. There are no health warnings = anywhere.=20 You need to enforce the laws, and you need to give law enforcement the = resources=20 and the powers to deal with the problem.

Control the supply chain: We can = help here.=20 You need to control the entry and the access to raw materials needed to = make=20 cigarettes. You need to control the access to acetate. You need to = control the=20 access to cigarette paper and tobacco. Tobacco is very easy to come by = in this=20 province, of course. Canada's leading producer of tobacco leaf is = Ontario.

Finally, First Nations have to get = involved in=20 the solution. They need to be consulted with and implicated in a = solution that=20 would involve them-perhaps being able to implement their own First = Nations=20 tobacco tax and take away the incentive for this illegal tobacco. You = need to=20 allow them to regulate the trade and to impose tobacco control on their=20 territory and consult with them in the solution. Perhaps then we will = see some=20 progress on this issue.

In short, this bill will do = nothing to control=20 tobacco in this province. It will do everything, if the initiative and = the=20 energies of government are wasted, to increase the rate of illicit trade = in this=20 province, and I've already shown you what that will lead to.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo=20 Berardinetti): Thank you. We have about five minutes for = questions.=20 We'll start with the government side. Mr. Moridi.

Mr. Reza Moridi: = Mr. McCarty,=20 do you think that tobacco causes cancer?

Mr. Donald = McCarty: Yes, I=20 do. It causes many serious and fatal diseases. Smokers have been aware = of those=20 risks for a long time.

Mr. Reza Moridi: = People die=20 of cancer as a result of smoking cigarettes, don't they?

Mr. Donald = McCarty: I just=20 said that. Yes, I believe that. Smokers have known that for a long time. = For=20 many years, the federal government took the initiative in informing = smokers of=20 that health risk, and the tobacco industry did everything that the = federal=20 government directed or suggested that we do in order to assist them with = that.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo=20 Berardinetti): Any other questions? No? We'll go to the = Conservatives.=20 Mr. Dunlop.

Mr. Garfield = Dunlop: Thank=20 you very much for being here today. I congratulate you on your courage = to deal=20 with this legislation, because it's obviously directed at companies like = yours.

You made some points that I think = are=20 important, and I was the one who brought them up earlier.

Obviously, this is directed at the = tobacco=20 companies. A number of members of my own family have passed away due to = cancer,=20 and they blame it on cigarette smoking. However, I worry about things = like child=20 obesity. As the next step, are we going to tackle people who make = chocolate=20 bars, or fast food companies and that sort of thing? In what direction = are we=20 really going here?

It's interesting that you would = bring up First=20 Nations today. As we speak, right now, the Minister of Community Safety = and=20 Correctional Services is making a First Nations policing announcement in = my=20 riding, in the Chippewas of Rama First Nation, and it's all about adding = more=20 money for policing. But in that very First Nation, there are a number of = tobacco=20 smokehouses. You can go to any one of them. And they're not only in = Rama. There=20 are a number of them throughout Muskoka and throughout Ontario. In fact, = if you=20 go to Wahta First Nation, you can actually stop and have a choice of = your=20 cigarette. You can stop there and they will give you a number of = cigarettes to=20 try, to see which one you like best. And no one's doing anything. Today = the=20 Minister of Community Safety is making an announcement on policing, but = he won't=20 stop at the smoke shop and see what he's going to do about smoking. = We've heard=20 a couple of times today that that is something that absolutely has to be = dealt=20 with if we're going to go down this road of having a completely = smoke-free=20 Ontario.

I guess it's more of a comment on = my behalf as=20 opposed to a question, but I know that if all the provinces get legal = action and=20 they get a court case or a judge who will say, "You're guilty," we're = not going=20 to get the money back. We're not going to get $40 billion for Ontario, = $30=20 billion for Quebec and maybe $150 billion across Canada. Do you know = what? We'r=20 e going to get a fraction because you're all going to be broke. There = won't be=20 tobacco companies.

It's more of a comment than = anything else, but=20 the reality is that more has to be done right here in Ontario and across = the=20 country to stop people from learning how to smoke.

Mr. Donald = McCarty: If I can=20 respond to a comment with a comment, I agree with what you say. At some = of the=20 places in Montreal, while the Habs were still in the playoffs, you could = actually put in to win a pair of Habs tickets when you bought 200 = cigarettes for=20 five bucks. There's a lot of that going on.

Ontario has the distinction of = having the=20 highest rate of anywhere in the country. It's around 50%. We estimate it = to be=20 at 40% in Quebec, and the other provinces have considerably lower rates, = but in=20 some sections of the country it's on the increase as well.

Mr. Garfield = Dunlop: Thank=20 you very much. It was more of a comment than-

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo=20 Berardinetti): Thank you. We have another minute or so. Mr. = Zimmer, you=20 have a question?

Mr. David Zimmer: = Thank you=20 for your very detailed presentation.

Mr. Donald = McCarty: You're=20 welcome, sir.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo=20 Berardinetti): Thank you.

HEART AND STROKE FOUNDATION
OF = ONTARIO

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo=20 Berardinetti): We'll move on, then, to our next presentation, = which is=20 the Heart and Stroke Foundation. We'll just give them a moment to get = the slide=20 projector out of the way here so that nobody gets-

Interjection.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo=20 Berardinetti): Okay, so we can begin. Welcome, Laura Syron, = from the=20 Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario. You know it's 15 minutes. Any = time not=20 used by your presentation will allow for questions. Welcome to the=20 committee.

Ms. Laura Syron: = Thank you=20 very much. My name is Laura Syron. I'm the vice-president of research, = advocacy=20 and health promotion at the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario. I = want to=20 begin by expressing my appreciation, and that of the foundation, for the = opportunity today to provide input on this very important piece of=20 legislation.

Before I offer comments on Bill = 155, I would=20 like to take a minute to introduce the foundation, for those committee = members=20 who aren't familiar with us. The Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario = is a=20 volunteer-based health charity. We take the lead in eliminating and = reducing the=20 impact of heart disease and stroke through our advocacy work, = advancement in=20 application of research and the promotion of healthy living.

As part of the smoke-free Ontario = strategy,=20 Heart and Stroke conducts the tobacco-control mass-media campaigns on = behalf of=20 the Ontario government, aimed at reducing exposure to second-hand smoke = and the=20 reduction of current smoking rates.

As a result, we are eager to see = any step that=20 will reduce current and future use of tobacco products. There are = approximately=20 13,000 tobacco-related deaths each year in Ontario. That's 36 deaths a = day.=20 Smoking is also the primary cause of heart disease, stroke and diseases = of the=20 vascular system. If you're a smoker, you are two to three times more = likely to=20 have a heart attack than a non-smoker and you are three times more = likely to=20 have a stroke.

The foundation has been pleased to = come before=20 committees of the House several times in recent years to support = government=20 action on tobacco issues. We have endorsed initiatives such as the = smoke-free=20 workplace legislation, the ban on tobacco power walls and the protection = of=20 children from smoking in cars-initiatives that demonstrate true public = health=20 leadership by this government. Today, the foundation is here to lend its = support=20 to Bill 155, legislation that promises to further reduce tobacco use and = its=20 deadly consequences.

We understand that many public = leaders and=20 organizations support this legislation as a matter of justice. They hope = to hold=20 the tobacco companies to account.

If I could just interrupt myself = for one=20 minute here, just to comment on my honourable colleague Mr. McCarty, who = just=20 left-

Mr. Jeff Leal: = He's right=20 behind you.

Ms. Laura Syron: = -or who has=20 just finished his remarks, it is interesting to me that the industry is = talking=20 to you about diverting from what to us is the real issue here, which is = the=20 public health issue, and also failed to mention that the Supreme Court = of Canada=20 has allowed the provinces to go after the assets of the parent companies = as well=20 as the Canadian companies. I think that's an important fact for people = to=20 know.

1520

It is well documented that the = industry has=20 been involved in misleading marketing practices, smuggling, fraud and = deceptions=20 regarding tobacco risks. However, our focus, and why I'm here to talk to = you=20 today as a health charity, is the potential beneficial impact on the = health of=20 the people of this province and our future generations. We have seen = that impact=20 in the United States, where the successful legal action resulted in the = master=20 agreement covering all states; a number of speakers have already spoken = to that=20 today. That agreement has dramatically reduced the ability of tobacco = companies=20 to promote their products to non-smokers and, for us, of particular = importance,=20 young people. Joe Camel is gone-you've heard that a lot today-along with = other=20 industry attempts to create another generation plagued by addiction and=20 unnecessary illness.

We at the Heart and Stroke are = really glad to=20 see the end of product placements of tobacco in movies and TV shows, = through=20 endorsements to merchandising, and the end of brand-name sponsorships. = We=20 applaud the goodbye to the misleading fog generated by puppet research = groups=20 created by the tobacco industry. These groups existed only to muddy the = waters=20 of public information and distract from the truth about the harmful = effects of=20 tobacco. And goodbye to the tobacco industry's lobbying efforts against = what we=20 see as common-sense provisions restricting youth access, banning ads on = school=20 properties or including cigars as tobacco products.

The master agreement in the United = States,=20 though, also resulted in the disclosure of 30 million pages of industry=20 documents, and for us this was equally important. It shone light into = dark=20 corners and on some of the biggest secrets. That information sparked = enormous=20 public discussion and raised awareness of how badly the public had been = misled=20 about tobacco risks. All of that has come about because of successful=20 litigation. We believe that these victories were just as significant as = the=20 massive amounts of money involved, and for us maybe even more = significant. Yes,=20 the $246 billion in fines hurt the industry, but the other provisions of = the=20 agreement helped to protect the health of ordinary Americans. They = encouraged=20 Americans to turn their backs on the industry and its products, and that = stopped=20 many of the practices that helped to kill people addicted to tobacco. We = believe=20 the same advantages could and should be enjoyed here in Ontario by this = kind of=20 legislation.

We believe that limiting the = ability of=20 tobacco companies to mislead and addict our citizens would be a = tremendous step.=20 These limitations are well justified by the public health risk posed by=20 tobacco-and I've already spoken about that-and by the enormous financial = burden=20 tobacco use creates for all of us taxpayers and by the siphoning away of = precious health care resources to treat its victims. This is not a = normal=20 industry or a legitimate business that can lay claim to being bullied or = unfairly targeted, and I've heard some questions about that. This is a = different=20 business, and everything contained in that lawsuit was well = deserved.

So now, Ontario, along with = British Columbia,=20 New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba-all = of these=20 provinces can pursue the same exercise in accountability and reap the = same=20 benefits. Ontario must join this legal action to look out for the = interests of=20 its citizens, because the tobacco industry is only concerned about = profits and=20 addicting more people to its hazardous product.

Certainly, billions of dollars in = settlements=20 would be welcomed, both as a deterrent to future misbehaviour but also = as=20 compensation for the massive health costs that tobacco has created. I = would say=20 that it would be even more welcome if the government were prepared to = commit all=20 those settlement monies to research, to cessation treatment and = prevention of=20 tobacco-related diseases.

So, as we have been doing since = 2006, we at=20 the foundation encourage you, the government, to push forward with = litigation=20 against the tobacco industry to expose deceptive practices. Now is the = time.=20 With other provinces on board and able to show a united front, now is = the time=20 to recover the public's tax dollars and safeguard our children from = future=20 addiction. And now, as always, is the right time to pursue justice and = uncover=20 the truth but, most importantly for us, protect public health.

In conclusion, we are pleased to = support Bill=20 155 and we thank the Premier and the Attorney General for taking this = important=20 step. Now I'm happy to answer questions.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo=20 Berardinetti): Thank you. There are almost nine minutes. The = last time=20 we started with the Conservatives. Mr. Kormos, do you have any = questions?

Mr. Peter Kormos: = New=20 Democrats are supporting this legislation. We indicated as much in the=20 Legislature. The legislation is going to pass before June 4. We have = concerns=20 over it, concerns that it's largely a symbolic gesture, because of = course=20 there's no certainty about success in litigation. But it has to be done = because,=20 as you say, and other presenters have indicated, the insurance company = has to be=20 brought to justice-not the insurance company-

Laughter.

Mr. Peter Kormos: = See, the=20 auto insurance industry is yet another parasitic industry. But the = tobacco=20 industry has to be brought to justice.

One also is concerned about the = fact that=20 prohibition is never going to happen, other than through the back door, = by=20 making smoking illegal in any number of places and now cities like = Hamilton,=20 which is considering illegalizing it where second-hand smoke will have = any=20 effect whatsoever-interesting legislation. I get complaints in my = riding, and I=20 experience it myself, about apartment buildings, for instance, and = condominiums,=20 where people make big investments and then have smokers next door where = the=20 smoke seeps in. Their right to smoke certainly extends far beyond the = threshold=20 of their door.

But the problem is that youth = smoking-and all=20 I've got is the newspaper reports of any number of studies. I live down = in=20 Niagara region. We're close to Hagersville and Caledonia. There are = very, very=20 cheap tobacco products coming off of native reserves. The = observation-and I=20 trust it's accurate; nobody's disputed it-that kids, because kids have = less=20 money than adults tend to do, are attracted to cheap tobacco: Gosh, all = the=20 litigation in the world against the big tobacco companies ain't going to = resolve=20 that issue, is it? Because somehow all the educational programs in the = world-my=20 generation has quit smoking, and for many of us, it may be far too late; = the=20 carcinogenic cells are already implanted.

Ms. Laura Syron: = Let's hope=20 not.

Mr. Peter Kormos: = Seriously,=20 though-people my age, my generation. But kids are still smoking. I don't = have=20 the hard data, but I drive past any high school and I want to get out of = the=20 truck and slap them silly. How stupid can you be?

So what's the story? We've had ad = campaigns;=20 we've got celebrities; we've got all this stuff. What' s going on?

Ms. Laura Syron: = There are a=20 couple of things, I think, to sort of tease apart in your question. = First of=20 all, and a number of other people have said this, the issue of = contraband is a=20 real issue and needs to be tackled by this government. That can happen=20 concurrently to what's going on. Not only does the contraband affect the = youth=20 but, as many people have been saying, a number of people in the = province,=20 including adults. So Heart and Stroke would be fully supportive of this=20 government taking action on contraband, concurrent with what it's doing, = and not=20 waiting.

In terms of youth smoking, overall = youth=20 smoking back to when-can I say "when we were young"? It has gone down. = But=20 you're right: It's a bigger challenge. There's an attitudinal, = psychological=20 issue with that. But again, some of the work that has gone on in Ontario = is=20 world-leading, in terms of how we create environments where it's harder = for kids=20 to smoke, how we make it not cool to smoke etc. I would say that there's = been a=20 lot of success here in Ontario in that.

So I think we have to keep going = with it. I=20 think that if we ever in this province think that smoking is done-close = that=20 file, move on-we are going to run into exactly what you're saying: We = then birth=20 another generation that doesn't know the peril. So we have to keep going = on what=20 we're doing, but we just have to do more.

Mr. Peter Kormos: = I just=20 wanted to throw that at you.

Ms. Laura Syron: = Yes,=20 absolutely.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo=20 Berardinetti): We'll move on to the Liberals. Any questions, = Mr.=20 Zimmer?

Mr. David Zimmer: = Thank you=20 for your very thoughtful presentation.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo=20 Berardinetti): To the Conservatives: Mr. Dunlop.

Mr. Garfield = Dunlop: I don't=20 really have any questions for you, other than I know that your = organization does=20 a lot of really positive work across our province. I know we have a very = strong=20 Heart and Stroke Foundation in the Orillia area. We have some great = speakers=20 every year who talk about all the different issues, not only smoking but = child=20 obesity, obesity in general, all the different things that cause = sickness to=20 heart and stroke. Really, I just want to thank you for taking part in = the=20 committee hearings today.

I think it's safe to say that this = bill will=20 pass. It's safe to say that it will get supported by all the political = parties,=20 because all the political parties are supportive of this type of = legislation.=20 However, I think we've heard other people say here today that if it is=20 successful, if the government wins their lawsuits against the tobacco = companies=20 in Canada, I'm not so sure we're going to see this happen overnight, and = I'm not=20 so sure we're going to see the money come to the provinces to compensate = for=20 some of the expenses they've endured as a result of smoking over the = years.

Ms. Laura Syron: = Thank you=20 for that, and thank you for your support of our organization and the = breadth of=20 what we do.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo=20 Berardinetti): Thank you very much for your presentation and = thank you=20 for coming out today.

That completes our list of = deputations,=20 members of committee. As Chair, I'm in the hands of committee on whether = or not=20 we proceed from here. We had the discussion earlier.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: = Sure. I=20 guess-

Mr. Peter Kormos: = I'm sorry,=20 I was going to seek unanimous consent for the committee to proceed.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo=20 Berardinetti): All right, so-

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: = Sorry,=20 Peter, what did you say?

Mr. Peter Kormos: = The Chair=20 might seek unanimous consent for the committee to proceed to = clause-by-clause,=20 and that means that any one member can block. I'm throwing that out as a = proposition.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: = I certainly=20 support that, Chair.

Mr. Garfield = Dunlop: I won't=20 be supporting that. I mentioned earlier how I felt.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: = Chair?

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo=20 Berardinetti): Mr. Rinaldi?

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: = Just a=20 question, I guess, to Mr. Dunlop: Based on what we heard here today, = it's a=20 matter of-I know we dealt with it already through unanimous consent. = Just a=20 question: The fact is that I think we all agreed with most of the = presenters=20 today. I'm not sure what your expectations would be that' ll come = tomorrow.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo=20 Berardinetti): Did you want to answer that or-Mr. Kormos?

Mr. Peter Kormos: = Just one=20 minute, Chair. Look, it' s not for us to browbeat Mr. Dunlop. Mr. Dunlop = has=20 made it clear that he wants to reflect on the material and consider = amendments.=20 Unless the government majority is prepared to use its majority to force = the=20 committee to proceed, then we can't, because we did make it-I've already = indicated I'm ready to go, but we've certainly got to respect another = committee=20 member's right when the subcommittee said "may"-and that clearly = contemplated=20 any number of things: the number of witnesses, the amount of time left = and=20 whether or not a particular caucus wanted to consider amendments.

I'm ready to go; Mr. Dunlop says = he's not. So=20 either the government's prepared to use its majority to force Mr. Dunlop = to=20 proceed, which I think would be a relatively unfair exercise of power, = or we=20 adjourn to the next possible date.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: = Chair?

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo=20 Berardinetti): Mr. Rinaldi.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: = Just for=20 clarification, Mr. Kormos, I think we indicated that we're prepared to = wait. My=20 question was, based on the deputations today, whether there were any = further=20 thoughts. I wasn't forcing anything. I think we have a right to-

Mr. Peter Kormos: = Yes, but=20 you wanted him to answer your questions. He doesn't have to answer those = questions.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: = He doesn't=20 have to answer the question; you're right.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo=20 Berardinetti): The only other question I wanted to put is a = deadline,=20 then. I know we'd meet again-the next date would be a week from today, = the 14th.=20 So we need a deadline for amendments, to set a date for the deadline. = Mr.=20 Kormos?

Mr. Peter Kormos: = What I'm=20 asking now is, does the committee have any interest in seeking = permission from=20 the House to meet earlier than Thursday of next week?

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: = I'd be more=20 prepared to do that, yes.

Mr. Peter Kormos: = So here we=20 are: We meet on Thursday, pursuant to standing orders. We have all day=20 tomorrow-M onday-to consider whether we want to seek permission from the = House=20 by way of an order for unanimous consent to meet on Tuesday at 4 o'c = lock or at=20 8-7:30 in the morning, 7:30 a.m. You buy lunch-or breakfast.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: = Not a=20 problem.

Mr. Peter Kormos: = At 7:30 at=20 night, you buy dinner.

Mr. Garfield = Dunlop: Mr.=20 Chair, I have no problem with that. I just wanted an opportunity to make = sure-I've never seen this happen at a committee hearing before. I want = the=20 opportunity for the general public to have an opportunity to get a hold = of any=20 of us for amendments. It's as simple as that. I'm not here to try to = kill the=20 bill in any way; I just want the opportunity for people to make that = amendment.=20 If it happened that we passed this today and someone contacted my office = on=20 Monday by e-mail and said, "You know, I think the bill should be amended = this=20 way," I would feel kind of guilty that I went-

Mr. Peter Kormos: = Oh hell,=20 Garfield, and then you'd blame it on the Liberals.

Mr. Garfield = Dunlop: Yes, I=20 would. But the reality is, if in fact we go ahead, I have no problem = meeting=20 at-let's say we call clause-by-clause amendments in by Monday at 4 = o'clock,=20 something like that. If you want to meet Tuesday morning or something, = or=20 Tuesday afternoon, I have no problem doing that.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo=20 Berardinetti): Okay. That would be up to the government House = leaders,=20 then, to decide.

Mr. Peter Kormos: = So let's=20 adjourn, which means our next standing-order sitting date, and between = now and=20 then we can do any number of things.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo=20 Berardinetti): All right. But we don't have to set a date, = then, at=20 this point, for the deadline? Because we don't know the date that we're = going to=20 meet on.

Mr. Peter Kormos: = We could=20 still set a date. I agree that Monday at noon-is that what you're=20 suggesting?

Mr. Garfield = Dunlop: Monday=20 at noon, Monday at 4 o' clock: That would be fine-just in case someone = does come=20 forward.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: = I would=20 suggest Monday at noon because then if there are some amendments, we = have some=20 time, in case we want to meet earlier.

Mr. Garfield = Dunlop: That=20 would be fine. I'll agree to that and I'll second that motion.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo=20 Berardinetti): So Monday at noon for any amendments. All in = favour?=20 Opposed? Carried.

The Clerk of the Committee = (Ms. Susan=20 Sourial): Can I just clarify? At the moment, we're looking at a = meeting=20 next Thursday-

Mr. Jeff Leal: = Yes.

The Clerk of the Committee = (Ms. Susan=20 Sourial): -i n the afternoon-

Mr. Jeff Leal: As = per the=20 standing orders.

The Clerk of the Committee = (Ms. Susan=20 Sourial): As per the order of the House?

Mr. Jeff Leal: = Yes.

The Clerk of the Committee = (Ms. Susan=20 Sourial): I'l l send out a notice, and then if things change, = they=20 change.

Mr. Garfield = Dunlop: It will=20 be a motion in the House, right?

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo=20 Berardinetti): Peter's going to go in there right now, talk to = the=20 House leaders and get it changed.

Mr. Garfield = Dunlop:=20 Okay.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo=20 Berardinetti): A motion to adjourn?

Mr. Peter Kormos: = We're=20 finished.

The committee adjourned at = 1533.

CONTENTS

Thursday 7 May 2009

Subcommittee = report=20 JP-339

Tobacco Damages and Health = Care Costs=20 Recovery Act, 2009, Bill 155, Mr. Bentley / =
Loi de=20 2009 sur le recouvrement du montant des dommages et du co=FBt des soins =
de=20 sant=E9 imputables au tabac, projet de loi 155, M. = Bentley=20 JP-341

Canadian Cancer Society, Ontario = division=20 JP-341
Ms. Irene Gallagher Jones
Mr. Andrew Noble

Non-Smokers' Rights Association = JP-343
Mr.=20 Garfield Mahood

Ontario Campaign for Action on = Tobacco JP-345=20
Mr. Michael Perley

Imperial Tobacco Canada JP-347 =
Mr. Donald=20 McCarty

Heart and Stroke Foundation of = Ontario JP-350=20
Ms. Laura Syron

STANDING COMMITTEE ON = JUSTICE=20 POLICY

Chair / = Pr=E9sident

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti = (Scarborough=20 Southwest / Scarborough-Sud-Ouest L)

Vice-Chair / = Vice-Pr=E9sident=20

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough L)

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti = (Scarborough=20 Southwest / Scarborough-Sud-Ouest L)

Mrs. Christine Elliott (Whitby-O = shawa PC)

Mr. Peter Kormos (Welland ND)

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough L)

Mr. Dave Levac (Brant L)

Mr. Reza Moridi (Richmond Hill = L)

Mr. Lou Rinaldi (Northumberland-Q = uinte West=20 L)

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew-N=20 ipissing-Pembroke PC)

Mr. David Zimmer (Willowdale = L)

Substitutions / Membres=20 rempla=E7ants

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North = /=20 Simcoe-Nord PC)

Mr. Kuldip Kular (Bramalea-Gore-M = alton L)

Clerk / = Greffi=E8re

Ms. Susan Sourial

Staff / Personnel =

Ms. Margaret Drent, research = officer,

Research and Information = Services