LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Tuesday 15 February 2005

TOBACCO CONTROL STATUTE LAW
AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I'm here today to speak out against this particular piece of legislation, Bill 164, and its attempt to make Ontario smoke-free. I'll be sharing my time with the member from Halton.
What I just said probably comes as no surprise. I do represent the majority of Ontario's tobacco farmers, many of whom are here today in the visitors' gallery, on both sides, and in the members' gallery. I'm pleased we have representatives here from both the tobacco marketing board and a newly formed group, Tobacco Farmers in Crisis.

However, my opposition to this bill comes not so much from my admiration and my respect for families who continue to grow tobacco -- and I do remind the House that it's a legal product. My opposition to the bill has more to do with the fact that there are alternatives. There are alternative solutions. There are other models working elsewhere in other jurisdictions, models that this government refuses to pay any attention to.

By ramming this through, I put that this government shows disrespect not only for farmers but for members of our veterans' associations and Legions, the hospitality industry, the corner store industry and many of their employees and customers. All of these sectors are suffering.

On December 15, just before we rose for Christmas, without any consultation, this government forged ahead with the McGuinty war on tobacco by introducing this particular piece of legislation. It's a bill that may appear heroic to those catching a teaser on the 6 o'clock news or skimming the headlines in a major paper. However, once you scratch below the surface, it's clear the bill is another fine example of what I describe as show and sham. We all know that this government's interest of late comes down to one thing: taxes and boosting revenue for pet projects. We have a gang here. They are addicted. They are addicted to lining the coffers at the expense of hard-working Ontarians.

I feel that a 100% smoking ban is short-sighted. There is an alternative. It's one that creates jobs and protects the livelihoods of those who already have jobs in the hospitality industry, which is one of Ontario's largest employers. The alternative: ventilation. Ventilation accommodates those who do smoke, and it accommodates those who do not smoke. On behalf of what I consider an already reeling hospitality industry, for example, I call on the Minister of Health to hold a similar summit to protect jobs. On behalf of hard-working tobacco farmers in the House here today, I demand that war reparations be paid from this government, compensation -- a word we finally heard in the eleventh hour from the speakers across the House -- for those farmers suffering the collateral damage from Mr. McGuinty's declared war on tobacco.

A smoking ban in the city of Toronto has been in place since June of last year. Businesses are reporting they're experiencing a 30% loss in business. A Toronto Sun article on October 3, 2004, quoted Shoeless Joe's franchise co-owner Siva Balakaran as saying, "It was immediately a 30% loss (after the smoking bylaw). Now, with no hockey it will drop down to 40%." Mr. Balakaran went on to say that he feels customers should be able to choose for themselves. It's simple: If you want to go to a smoking establishment, that's your choice. For non-smokers, they too can choose whether or not they want to frequent a smoking or a non-smoking establishment.

The proposed legislation is not only going to hurt restaurants, bars, taverns, pubs and also farmers, as I've indicated -- the farmers in my riding of Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant, Oxford county, Elgin county and elsewhere -- Legions and veterans' halls across the province; as well, there's evidence of charity casinos, bingos and corner stores.

1720
With respect to our farmers, we all know -- and I appreciate the NDP raising this issue as well -- that this government promised tobacco farmers $50 million in its 2003 campaign and this $50 million was slotted into the health section of their platform. Again, perhaps in true Liberal fashion, Bill 164 has ignored that promise. That was a year and a half ago. Farmers are in much more serious financial trouble now than they were a year and a half ago. Things have changed. Tobacco farmers feel abandoned by the members opposite. They certainly have no help and certainly not a keen ear from their Minister of Agriculture, a cabinet minister now dubbed the "health minister in training." If your aim is to put farmers out of business, then at least as a government provide a dignified severance package, one that will allow them to pay off the banks, invest in retraining and get on with their own lives.

Transiting to another crop, which has been suggested by this government, is not easy. How do 1,000 tobacco farmers transit to other crops without stepping on the toes of other Ontario farmers? I think of fruits and vegetables over-saturating their markets.

I attend many farm meetings this time of year. When I go to tobacco meetings, they seem to range from 600 people up to 1,700 people in one very large room because of the crisis in the industry. Last week, a group that I mentioned, Tobacco Farmers in Crisis, provided some background information on what's going on in the United States and how they are helping their farmers who are being put out of business. Both industry and governments recently announced a package to assist growers in the rationalization of their industry. It uses 2002 as the base year for calculations. In the United States, they have come up with $9.6 billion for their tobacco farmers. That's US dollars. In flue-cured tobacco -- this is the type of tobacco we grow in Ontario -- the total share is $5.8 billion, again in US dollars, to be disseminated over 10 years, again, for US farmers.

In the United States, the objective here is not to eliminate tobacco production, but to move abruptly to a lower-cost, improved quality product and a free market system with no price support programs. The US objective is to compensate the grower for loss of equity. In the future, there will be no production restrictions or safety net supports.

How would this apply to Ontario? Tobacco Farmers in Crisis have crunched some figures here, again, based on the 2002 crop. The US 2002 crop came in at about 655 million pounds. Ontario's 2002 crop -- the figure I have here is about 108 million pounds. When you work this out, believe it or not, the Ontario equivalent, if they had something similar to their competitors across the border, would be in the order of $1.1 billion.

That sounds like an awful lot of money. Bear in mind that every single year this government, plus other provinces and the federal government, accrue well in excess of $8 billion just in taxation on this particular product. That's a $1.1-billion figure, not a hit in one year. It would be amortized or depreciated out over 10, perhaps 20 years, again depending on market conditions, depending on how many farmers this particular government would continue to force out. Again, that figure is a far cry from the as yet unfulfilled promise, a total of $120 million for commitments from both the federal and provincial governments in this country.

Prior to November 11, Premier McGuinty encouraged all Ontarians to honour and remember those who served our country, and I question how this government can justify telling men and women who fought for our freedom in the Second World War that they can no longer enjoy a legal product. In my opinion, they've earned the right to light up in their own club, their own Legion, their own veterans' association. It was obviously OK then for our forces to smoke government-supplied cigarettes while they were overseas. Therefore, why is it not OK to do it now in their own halls?
Corner stores have been mentioned today, and corner stores know full well that this legislation, coupled with the three tobacco tax increases under this regime -- the tax on a carton of smokes now is something like $54; not on native reserves, I might add. Fifty-four dollars just to cover the tax, just to start. The result: We're seeing a continued increase -- we see in Toronto an increase in convenience store robberies, burglaries, violence and, in some cases, fatalities at the convenience stores.

Liberal tobacco policy is obviously a dangerous policy for people. I think of my discussions with members of OKBA, the Ontarian Korean Businessmen's Association, who operate so many of these corner stores, stores that are open very late in the evening. I've had meetings with a group that has organized bingo halls in the province of Ontario, and again, I hope this government is meeting with these people.

For example, there are about 200 groups in Ontario that share $7 million every year just from the bingo halls in Hamilton. Now, it's no secret that many bingo players are smokers. Once a smoking ban is implemented, these folks will head elsewhere. They may head across the border. They may head to native reserves to continue playing bingo.

You know, the real downer in this whole situation with respect to the bingo halls is that we would see so many sport associations for young people, religious and cultural, community service associations, and poverty relief organizations suffer as a result of a smoke-free Ontario that will invariably close down a lot of bingo halls. When one bingo hall closes, roughly 40 charities suffer and ultimately lose much of their operating funds. By the same token, a closed legion is no longer there to support its community either.

With respect to restaurants, over the past few years those in the business have sunk hundreds of thousands of dollars into designated smoking rooms -- DSRs, as they are known. Even with the implementation of a designated smoking room, many establishments have lost money. Now this government is saying they have no regard for the time and money that has been put into these special areas -- in many cases, up to $100,000 -- to build a separate, ventilated smoking area. To add insult to injury, the Ontario Liberals really don't give two hoots that it's now going to cost these same people somewhere in the order of $20,000 to tear down these designated smoking rooms.

I raise the question -- and it's been raised before -- is this government purposefully trying to put people out of business? You say your province-wide smoking ban is about health. Again, consider the stressed-out needs of people and employees who are trying to make ends meet, stressed-out single moms who have lost or may lose that waitressing job, the physical and mental health concerns associated with the stress of losing your business, losing your job, losing your farm. I would invite any member here to come down and talk with some of the farmers in Brant county, Oxford county, Norfolk and Elgin, many who are on the verge of bankruptcy.

1730
Going back to the Toronto Sun, Siva Balakaran, in this article, describes this government as "screwing small businesses" out of survival.
In May of last year, an independent study conducted for the Fair Air Association clearly indicated that smoking bans would severely damage Quebec's hospitality industry. The research, carried out by Northstar Research Partners, confirmed what the industry has known for a long time: Smokers are better for the hospitality business than non-smokers.

According to the results, smokers currently frequent bars and pubs 50% more than non-smokers. This legislation does not plan for that. As with most bills that have been rammed through this House, you have your sights set on appeasing one or two groups -- clearly the anti-tobacco activists. As a result, you either can't see or you refuse to see not only the impact on business; you refuse to deliberate or even consider any alternatives. There are alternatives to such a blanket edict. There is an alternative that does create jobs and protects the livelihood of those who are already working in the hospitality industry, and this alternative accommodates both those who wish to avoid tobacco smoke and those who choose to smoke. That alternative, again, is the continued use of designated smoking rooms and the continued installation and maintenance of ventilation equipment.

Once again, the anti-tobacco lobby has done a fine job of bending the truth, if you will, on this matter of ventilation. Lobbyists tend to use scare tactics instead of sound science to attract media attention. Research does show that proper ventilation projects do protect workers from environmental contaminants such as tobacco smoke.

Just like their Liberal friends across the way, the anti-tobacco lobby has reversed their position in Toronto. There has been a flip-flop on the designated smoking room issue. In fact, in 1999, the Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco endorsed a bylaw that allowed for designated smoking rooms. Then, at, I guess in their view, the most politically advantageous time, they changed their minds. Now they're against it.

To address employees entering designated smoking rooms, I feel it should be voluntary, or we could look to legislation that exists in British Columbia that limits an employee's time spent in a designated smoking room to 20% of their shift.

Again, groups like the Fair Air Association, hotels, restaurants, bars and pubs don't want to work against the government. In fact, they would much rather work with the members across the way. But again, are the members across the way able to listen and work with these people?

Ottawa was mentioned earlier. Ottawa implemented non-smoking August 1, 2001. Since that time, roughly 60 bars and pubs out of the 200 in Ottawa closed their doors. Similarly, since the smoking ban in New York City -- that was in March of last year -- owners and managers of bars say business is down about 40%. They are laying off hundreds of employees. In British Columbia, in that initial 100% smoking ban bylaw, the initial initiative, the impact in the first 80 days saw losses in the ballpark of $8 million and 800 people laid off. More recently, and actually in good time, smarter heads prevailed in British Columbia and that issue has been rectified with the kind of alternative I was talking about earlier.

I understand casinos in Las Vegas, for example, have been warned they are next on the agenda of a very well organized anti-smoking lobby. Again, lost jobs and lost revenue would be the result. Smokers will go elsewhere to gamble, to shop and to spend money. The gaming industry has been dealing with smoking and ventilation issues for many years. The antis claim that smoking bans have not had a negative effect on casino business. I would like to see some Ontario research on this issue. I would put it forward to this government to come up with some facts.

Casinos in the state of Delaware have been under a smoking ban since 2002. They've seen customers flock to native casinos or casinos in nearby states that allow smoking. A recent air quality study at the Bellagio resort in Las Vegas, a resort with a ventilation system, found that casino employees breathed the equivalent of smoking one or two cigarettes a year. Obviously the air within this casino is cleaner than the air outside. We know, for example, that in the mining industry, ventilation protects miners a mile or more underground from chemicals. Why would this not be an option for this government with respect to allowing smoking in those licensed establishments that wish to cater to customers who like to have a cigarette or a cigar? Is this about protecting customers from the nuisance, for some, of second-hand smoke, or are we looking at an across-the-board vendetta against the legal use of tobacco?

I guess my question is, can this government guarantee bar owners, pub owners and restaurant owners that anti-smokers are going to come forward and spend more time in their establishments once they are forced to go smoke-free? I don't think it's going to happen. I guarantee it's not going to happen. I refer again to the independent study: Almost 70% of non-smokers surveyed said that a smoking ban would have no impact on the frequency of their visits to bars and pubs.

In a Windsor Star article last November, Linda Kramer, who owns the Meadows Roadhouse in Essex county, describes the economic situation of her establishment after a smoking bylaw was implemented. "It's devastating," Kramer says. She goes on to say business dropped 53% -- that was in one month. She lost her Sunday afternoon NASCAR crowd. The restaurant used to be full; now she has two people for NASCAR races.
Banning smoking in bars, pubs and restaurants across Ontario is not going to force people to permanently butt out. What it will do, however, is force them to stay home and smoke. Again, studies from the Brewers of Ontario tell us that people stay home and smoke in front of their children, quite possibly in an unventilated environment.

There are so many pieces of evidence. Again, I'll make reference to a quote from Karen Bodirsky with respect to the layoffs predicted in the industry: "It's an open and shut case," she says. "If you shut down smoking, you shut down small business. If you open up to ventilation, you open doors for small business across the province."

I made mention of the dire straits our tobacco farmers have found themselves in, particularly over the last several years. As an MPP for tobacco country, I reiterate that a promise of $50 million was made by this particular government. That was a year and a half ago. The time has long passed. There was a promise made by your federal cousins to cough up $71 million in assistance. This came from former ag minister Bob Speller. I don't see anything about this in this legislation or in any of the discussions. I have heard nary a word about this in any of the questions that both MPP Ernie Hardeman and I have put forward to the Premier and to the finance minister in this Legislature -- questions that were often bounced over to the ag minister, who really had nothing more to say than to give us a lecture on smoking. Tobacco farmers are growing tired. They're tired of seeing the dodging of questions on where the money is. They are going broke, as we all know. They are desperate.

On the issue of collateral damage -- and I'm going to turn this over to my colleague from Halton very soon -- I suggest that as a primary industry, farming in much of southwestern Ontario has always had, and continues to have, a beneficial effect on the rest of the economy.

1740
There is a gentlemen here today in the members' gallery, Mark Bannister, with Tobacco Farmers in Crisis. He did a presentation last week to 600 farmers, and he just read out some headlines from the local Delhi News-Record. Delhi is a tobacco town. They just lost their last new car dealership over the last few years. This town has now lost all three of its new car dealerships. Here are some of the headlines: "Growing Angry -- Farmers Show Their Frustration with Blockades," "Delhi Dodge Mum on Future," "We are at War," "It's About More Than Smoking," "Civil Disobedience is not the Answer," "ATV Stolen from Garage," "Help Crime Stoppers Solve Tobacco Theft," "Tobacco Stolen in Pine Grove." As Mr. Bannister indicated, this was just one edition of a great small town newspaper in Delhi, just down the road from Tillsonburg.

Delhi Dodge just recently closed. I think that's a measure; that's the real world. I would invite anyone here to come down to Delhi or Tillsonburg, or to other tobacco towns like Ohsweken or Caledonia, and take a look for yourself.