There are already signs that the Canadian Tobacco Bill (C-71) may be in
trouble in the Canadian Senate. [log in to unmask] wrote after the vote in
the House of Commons:
------- text clip ---
As you are no doubt aware, the Bill has passed the House of Commons and
moved on to the Senate, where it was scheduled for second reading today.
Next, it will go to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and
Constitutional Affairs for further study.  Health Minister David Dingwall
will appear before the committee in a few days, the Senate will then break
and public hearings will be held in early April.  It is hoped that the
hearings will end by mid-April, but that remains to be seen.  Third
reading would follow the committee stage.
------- end clip ---

Conservative Senators have already said that they 'will not be rushed' in
dealing with the Bill. The meaning of 'will not be rushed' is absolutely
clear. There is to be a Federal election called in the late spring
(probably end of April). Under Canadian law, all bills that have not been
passed by that sitting of the Parliament die. Finito! If the Senate is
allowed to 'go slow' through a variety of stall tactics all the gains made
in the House will be lost and the tobacco effort will be set back to the
starting line. Many of the Liberal Senators in the Canadian Senate (a
non-elected and for life body for those of you outside Canada!) are 'very
close' to Tobacco interests so it is hard for a Liberal Government Health
Minister to mobilize them in support of the bill just because they are
(were?) Liberals in their pre-Senate life.

The message here is absolutely clear and it is hoped that the anti-tobacco
forces understand it. Rather than waiting until the last minute (in April)
to bring public opinion pressure to play in the Senate deliberations,
there should be a concerted effort here (in the electronic venue's virtual
workspace) to apply pressure early and sustain it until the Senate has
acted on the bill in time for the bill to pass third reading and become
law -prior to the election call.

A second line in the strategy should recognize that the sitting Liberal
member of the House of Commons are heavily divided on the bill and many
would appear to be 'quite close' to tobacco industry interests. There is
every reason to believe the the Liberal Government will be returned to
power in the election. However, there are individual liberal members who
come from electoral ridings where they are vulnerable.

While a concerted effort is targeted at Canadian Senate, it would be
useful if the anti-Tobacco groups provided a public list of Liberal
Members of Parliament who (a) appear to be weak in their support for Bill
C-71, and (b) are in ridings where there could be a fight for relection.
Members of those ridings could then put the Tobacco issue on the agenda
for their sitting member of Parliament _NOW_, _BEFORE_ the election call
and make it clear to them that their own seats are at risk unless they
help explain to the Senate that they support the passage of Bill C-71. Do
not be fooled by stalling tactics around 'due process' and 'amendements to
improve the bill'. Due process could as well refer to an elected Senate
and 'improvements' can flow from how a passed bill is handled and not from
failing to pass the bill.

The second group of candidates who should be targeted (and TARGETED NOW)
are the group of newly designated women candidates who are being appointed
by the Prime Minister to run for office. As women they should be more than
concerned with the issue and in their first run for Federal office it
should be made clear that they are being tested starting NOW, now when the
election is called.

Since there is almost no chance that the Liberal government will not be
re-elected the above strategy should be embraced by both Liberals and the
opposition in the struggle to get the Tobacco bill passed. What is the
loss if a few hopeful and sitting Liberal members of Parliament lose their
jobs (or risk losing their jobs) if we can pass the Tobacco Bill.

What is a stake is the health of Canada and an opportuntity to tell the
Tobacco industry that one cannot buy a 'clean bill of corporate health' by
first obstructing the passage of a Tobacco Bill and then saying "but we
are just obeying the laws of the land" when the market Tobacco in
agressive ways.

Sam Lanfranco <[log in to unmask]>