CANADA House of Commons Debates VOLUME 138 Ï NUMBER 031 Ï 2nd SESSION Ï 37th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Monday, November 25, 2002 Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) All parliamentary publications are available on the ``Parliamentary Internet Parlementaire´´ at the following address: http://www.parl.gc.ca 1811 HOUSE OF COMMONS Monday, November 25, 2002 The House met at 11:00 a.m. tobacco and making modifications to the paper. They do not do it simply because there is no requirement in Canada to force tobacco Prayers companies to make fire safe cigarettes. This might seem like a contradiction in terms, a fire safe cigarette, but let me explain. Changing the density of the tobacco and the PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS quality of the paper will not impair the enjoyment of the cigarette. Ï (1105) The lighting and the smoking of the cigarette is not changed. What is changed is the burn if the cigarette is not puffed. In other words, the [English] person would have to continue to puff the cigarette for it to stay HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS ACT alive, otherwise it will simply extinguish on its own. If a person Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.) moved, seconded by abandons the cigarette for a period of time it will simply extinguish. the member for Madawaska—Restigouche, that Bill C-260, an act to amend the Hazardous Products Act (fire-safe cigarettes), be read the If a regular cigarette is abandoned on an ashtray, when a person second time and referred to a committee. comes back it is nothing but ashes. If a fire safe cigarette is He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer a change to the abandoned on an ashtray, when a person comes back there will still seconder of my bill. The seconder is currently the Parliamentary be a butt left that can be relit and smoked. Secretary to the Minister of Health. A possible better seconder would be the member for Nunavut. As we can readily imagine, if a cigarette is abandoned on a piece The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is there unanimous consent to of furniture there may well be a disastrous situation on our hands change the seconder of the motion? when we return. The situation may be even more disastrous situation if we were to fall asleep. We may end up waking to find the furniture Some hon. members: Agreed. on fire. Had the person been smoking a fire safe cigarette, the Mr. John McKay: Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for the cigarette would have extinguished itself and no harm would have opportunity to speak to Bill C-260, important legislation that has to been done. do with the fire safety of cigarettes, the flammability standards of cigarettes. This all seems fairly simple; fire safe cigarettes versus ones that are hazards to people, their property and the environment. It looks In February 1916 a fire destroyed our Parliament. The only like a good idea. It seems like a good idea. What is the problem? building that survived was the Library and some charred wings of the north and west buildings. It was a disaster for the Canadian Ï (1110) people and for those who worked in Parliament. There was no official cause for the Parliament of Canada burning Frankly, I am sort of bewildered myself. I do not know why this down but it was widely believed that the fire was caused by careless initiative was not taken earlier and why we should not amend the smoking. The fire was caused by a cigarette that set a piece of Hazardous Products Act so Canadians will not continue to lose their furniture on fire. The fire quickly spread throughout this institution. lives due to hazardous smoking. Every year we hear about horrific fires throughout our country I am sure big tobacco companies will dream up some reason that where there is a loss of life, injury and enormous property damage, this is not such a good idea but, I respectfully suggest, the credibility and frequently they are attributed to careless smoking. Someone falls of big tobacco on pretty well every issue is similar to that of an asleep and leaves a cigarette unattended and the house burns down Enron accountant. with the children in it. It is virtually impossible to turn on the evening news without a reference to some fire that has visited some horrible tragedy on some relatively innocent family. Interestingly big tobacco had no serious reservations about similar New York legislation that mandated fire safe cigarettes by mid-year Is it really careless smoking? Cigarette companies have known for 2003. Its only objection was that it was state legislation rather than years how to eliminate death and injury by changing the density of federal legislation. Obviously that is not the problem here. 1812 COMMONS DEBATES November 25, 2002 Private Members' Business Our New York colleagues in the New York State legislature Ï (1115) passed a similar bill sixty to nothing. I do not know how the New York State legislature works but I would imagine it is similar to here, There are several options open to the minister, pursuant to the bill. and to get a unanimous vote on a bill is an extraordinary The minister can amend the Hazardous Products Act and we can all accomplishment. take a day off and feel that we have gone one tiny step further in securing the health and well-being of all Canadians. On the other The New York State legislation prohibits the sale of any cigarette hand the minister could say she is not interested and, in theory at that does not meet flammability standards. It is a very tough piece of least, decide to do that. However in my conversations with the legislation. Our New York colleagues deserve our congratulations minister she has shown a great deal of interest in the subject matter for their stand in the face of big tobacco and its unseemly influence of this bill. She could make the suggestion that the tobacco act be on legislators. amended as opposed to the Hazardous Products Act. Reasonable people can disagree as to which route should be chosen. I made a The Globe and Mail, in commenting on a class action lawsuit filed choice that it be the Hazardous Products Act rather than the tobacco by a Toronto area lawyer representing a Brampton family devastated act because I thought it to be an easier regulatory route to pursue this by a fire, summarized the judicial reasoning as follows: interest. However, the technology exists to make fire-safe cigarettes, the kind that go out quickly when not puffed. If most manufacturers prefer to make ones that burn down While this is not an emergency, and I would not describe this as an even when they're not being smoked, that's their choice, but choices have emergency, it is a matter of some urgency. Each year literally dozens consequences. of Canadians die, hundreds of Canadians are injured and there are Further on, the editorial quotes Judge Cumming, who was millions of dollars in property damage. In the last year that I have reviewing a class action application on the issue. He was quoted as statistics for, which is 1992, it showed 62 fatalities, 385 injuries and saying: $37 million in property damage caused by smoking related fires. that cigarettes have a design defect, and that "manufacturers have deliberately All of the above could be completely eliminated or substantially designed the product in such a way as to cause misuse reduced by forcing tobacco companies to meet certain flammability That is pretty clear and it kind of puts the axe to the concept of standards. I cannot imagine what MP in the House or what minister careless smoking. would not interested in saving lives or securing the safety of Canadians. I keep wondering what could possibly be the objection. MLA Therien from the Canada Safety Council wrote to me and said: This is clearly a matter that is within federal jurisdiction. It does avoid the American trap of having state by state legislation. This is The Canada Safety Council has been a strong advocate for fire safe cigarettes for an extended period of time. By failing to regulate the ignition properties of all of national interest. It seems a little silly to have it state by state cigarettes, Canada is missing a prime opportunity to prevent fires and deaths. because in certain states there would be a fire safe cigarette and in Without question, mandating fire safe cigarettes will prove to be a reasonable and other states there would not be, so people would have to be careful effective safety countermeasure. about where they fell asleep. When I appeared before the subcommittee on private members' Every year that we let this go more Canadians die and are injured bills I showed a CBC clip from a documentary entitled Smokes and needlessly, and more property damage is incurred needlessly. Fire. It is pretty graphic. In addition to the scenes of huge personal and family devastation, there is a demonstration of two cigarettes This is a relatively simple piece of legislation. I commend it to lying on two identical pieces of furniture. The camera is trained on members and I ask them to give serious thought to the idea that this the furniture, the cigarettes and a clock behind the furniture. The fire- should go to the committee immediately. I am asking members safe cigarette peters out and does no harm to the furniture.