Tory Anti-Tobacco Law Proves Useless

I wrote surprisingly alot about Bill C-32, which banned the sale of flavoured tobacco products targeted at children. Cigarillos, basically.  It turns out to be a fairly meaningless stab at populism:

Bill C-32 requires that cigarillos less than 1.4 grams cannot be flavoured or sold in packages of less than 20 units. Since the law doesn't affect cigars more than 1.4 grams, tobacco companies quickly took advantage of the loophole and put cigars weighing just over the required minimum weight on the market.

Oddly enough, with all the to-ing a fro-ing over C-32, nobody appears to have thought of this loophole.

Bernier Admits Defeat

I take this to mean that the Tories will not support watering down Bill C-32, which is an amendment to the tobacco act that would prohibit the sale of flavoured cigarette products in Canada (esp. candy-flavored cigarillos, which are allegedly marketed towards children).

Interesting to see if this has any effect on the Senate, which has independent reasons for treating the bill with caution. Interesting too to see what happens in Quebec, where Rothmans, Benson & Hedges has threatened to close down a tobacco factory near Quebec City if the Bill goes through unamended.

Lastly, Bernier's statement concludes:

Unfortunately, the debate within our party has led to a decision which is contrary to the one I have supported. In politics, one sometimes wins battles, sometimes loses others. As a team player, I have chosen to rally the large consensus within my team, though without repudiating the principles that I have defended.

Could someone show that to Denis Coderre?

Tory Turmoil Over Tobacco Bill

Rothmans, Benson & Hedges is threatening to close a tobacco factory near Quebec City over Bill C-32, which is an amendment to the tobacco act that would prohibit the sale of flavoured cigarette products in Canada. The legislation is an attempt to ban those candy flavoured cigarillos that tobacco companies market to children. But the problem is that--so R,B&H allege--the same flavours are used in certain brands of cigarette targeted to adults, and banning them would in effect ban the manufacture of these cigarettes.

Since Quebec City counts as the CPoC's base in that province, a number of Tory MPs have spoken out against Bill C-32 in its present form, including Julie Coulliard's ex Maxime Bernier (and in fact the entire Quebec CPoC Caucus).

What's interesting is the cognitive dissonance between Bernier and Co. and those Torys still in support of C-32. On the one hand, Bernier blames Health Canada for (deliberately?) writing the law too broadly:

...as drafted by Health Canada bureaucrats, the text of the bill has a reach that is so broad that it would also forbid the use of hundreds of other ingredients, in particular those used in the production of American blended cigarettes. This blend contains among other things Burley tobacco, and the ingredients added to it are only used to modify in an imperceptible way the bitter taste of this type of tobacco without giving it a specific aroma like that of fruits or candy.

On the other hand, Conservative supporters of the Bill are implying that they approved the current language for a purpose:

"The goal of Bill C-32 is to make tobacco products less affordable, less accessible and less appealing to the most vulnerable segment of our population -- young people," wrote Josee Bellemare, press secretary to Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq in an email to the National Post yesterday.

Assistant deputy minister Paul Glover conceded before the Senate committee that he realizes additives to American blend cigarettes "are not meant to be a distinguishing flavour." But, they make bitter tobacco smoother. And "a product that is easier to smoke and less harsh is easier for youth to start." Any attempt to exempt American cigarettes would create a "loophole," he argued, through which child-luring tobacco peddlers might slink.

Any bets on which way this one will settle? I'm going with the "blame the faceless bureaucrats" line winning out.

Kinsella Will Be Displeased

Warren gave me crap once for suggesting that Bill C-32, An Act to amend the Tobacco Act, which would prohibit the sale of flavoured tobacco products in Canada, was light-weight stuff in the grand scheme of Politics. Now, my favorite Tory Senator, Elaine McCoy, has expressed more substantive doubts over the legislation:

As to cigarillo consumption, specifically, Health Canada only has two years of data and therefore trend lines cannot be reliably discerned as yet. However, the latest survey clearly demonstrates that most Canadians who buy and consume flavoured tobacco products are of legal age to do so. The other incontrovertible fact that CTUMS reveals is that 12,100 fewer children smoked cigarillos in 2008 as compared to 2007. And although cigarillo consumption increased overall, the only age cohort which escalated its usage in this time period was young adults between the ages of 20 and 24.

On the other hand, I find myself in general agreement with this analysis from her comment section:

...not so much wrong as based on a hypothesis or two (for which they don't YET have data): that big tobacco MAY use ads to target young people, which would INCREASE smoking rates, and THUS to prevent this, the legislation is required.

I think these hypotheses are not completely unfounded; evidence LIKELY exists (I'm guessing here, not having looked into this) that sweet, fruity alcoholic drinks (fizzy drinks) had similar studies/issues raised about them.

The "precautionary principle" is likely hard at work here (where Health Canada is concerned).

So the real debate may be more about whether one feels the precaution is worth the curtailing of rights. I'm fine with it, myself.

Mind you, its still small-bore stuff.