Bill S-5 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Tobacco Act and the Non-smokers’ Health Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

Part 1 of this enactment amends the Tobacco Act. In order to respond to the report of the House of Commons’ Standing Committee on Health entitled Vaping: Toward a Regulatory Framework for E-Cigarettes, it amends the Act to regulate the manufacture, sale, labelling and promotion of vaping products and changes the title of the Act accordingly. It also amends certain provisions of the Act relating to tobacco products, including with respect to product standards, disclosure of product information, product sale, sending and delivery and product promotion. The schedule to the Act is amended to add menthol and cloves as prohibited additives in all tobacco products. As well, it adds new provisions to the Act, including in respect of inspection and seizure.
Part 1 also makes consequential amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act.
Part 2 of this enactment amends the Non-smokers’ Health Act to regulate the use of vaping products in the federal workplace and on certain modes of transportation.

[Neil Collishaw]

I don't think anyone here doubts that vaping is going to be less hazardous than smoking, certainly for smokers. The problem comes with the potential public health effects. What happens if these products are widely available, and people who never smoked start picking them up or ex-smokers start picking them up? Then they're going to become addicted, and some of them are going to move on to combustible cigarettes, and the whole epidemic is perpetuated. Those are the problems we're trying to avoid while maximizing the benefits that Dr. Ostiguy has referred to, whereby there is a potential for smokers who are unable to quit to at least have a somewhat less hazardous experience with satisfying their nicotine addiction. Once again, it's a question of balance. How can we get the benefits that are going to come from legalizing this product while guarding against the potential for harm?

I would further comment on what Dr. Ostiguy said earlier about how there hadn't been much problem in European countries with young people picking up these products. It should be noted that in most of these countries, advertising for these products is not allowed. Even in England, where some advertising is allowed and there's strong advocacy for the use of these products, the advertising that is allowed is much less than would be allowed under Bill S-5. Where there is a serious problem with young people picking up these e-cigarettes in large numbers is in the United States, where advertising for them is unrestricted. That is a situation we do not want to get into in Canada.

[Neil Collishaw]

I'd like to make an additional comment.

Those products are on the market. Since 2009, Health Canada has said that those products are not permitted without the submission of a proposal that would result in approved therapeutic products. No one has submitted such a document. Even though those products are less dangerous than cigarettes, they do not reach the “therapeutic” threshold according to the Health Canada standard. If we made the products legal through Bill S-5, we would sort of create a third route between illegal products and therapeutic products approved by Health Canada.

[Dr. Gaston Ostiguy]

I do agree with Bill S-5 that the e-cigarette doesn't need to be advertised. I see the e-cigarette as a tool for the addicted smoker to stop smoking.

For example, with the Quebec law at the moment, it's impossible for the owner of, let's say, a vape shop to teach his customers how to use electronic cigarettes. It is not that easy to use them properly. They're not even allowed to show the stuff they can sell in their window.

I have an example of a vape shop where they have a blind on their window. They aren't able to advertise the stuff they could sell to an addicted tobacco smoker. Next door is a sex shop with all the stuff in the window, and the door is open. So let's be logical sometimes in our legislation.

The point I'm concerned with at the moment is the fact that the population is under the impression that the electronic cigarette is as harmful as the tobacco cigarette. It doesn't need to be advertised, but at least let the owner of a vape shop teach customers how to use it properly, and allow them to tell them that it is less harmful.

I've seen lots of references to the Australian experience, but I wish people would pay some attention to the British experience—the document issued by the Royal College of Physicians in London, the fourth document published by Public Health England.

In the last report, Public Health England even suggests having vape shops in hospitals. They are suggesting that the national health scheme pay for the electronic cigarette for the addicted smoker. We know very well that the greatest proportion of smokers are people who are poorer and less educated.

[Lesley James]

The proposed regulations will, but an amendment to make sure that happens in Bill S-5 would be beneficial.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Ms. James, you showed us what I consider to be some of the worst marketing. This is marketing to young women. It looks like a cosmetic. This is the type of cigarette they market that says “vogue” on it. Does Bill S-5 ban these slim cigarettes?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Okay.

We've heard a lot of testimony on this so I don't want to belabour it. If Bill S-5 currently allows lifestyle advertising in bars targeting young non-smokers of the benefits of vaping with things like allowing draws and contests, winning beach vacations, access to invitation-only parties, tickets to concerts or sporting events, if that's allowed that strikes me—I'm no marketing expert—as something that's probably going to cause a lot of non-smokers and young people to start using nicotine. That sounds to me like more of a drafting oversight.

[Lesley James]

Are you asking if Bill S-5 should contain details around putting a message right on the tobacco product itself?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Very good.

My last question is for Ms. James. We're talking about the harm reduction we see with the e-cigarettes. I know you mentioned that Health Canada can put that in their regulations, but do you think we should have that in Bill S-5 so there is a well-thought-out message that would be standard for everyone's use?

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

I'm certainly with you on that. I have to say categorically that anything we can do to stop new generations and non-users from becoming addicted to nicotine, we should be doing, as a society. It's an incredibly addictive drug. It's in all of our interests to see the addiction to nicotine ended in Canada, if we can get there.

Doctor, I missed you in the first go around and the second. Do you have any thoughts about advertising, and is Bill S-5 restrictive enough for e-cigarettes and vaping, or do you think we should be doing more?

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Okay, thank you.

Moving on, then, I think I've heard every single one of you say that Bill S-5 is not strong enough in terms of preventing youth and non-users from picking up the nicotine habit or becoming addicted. Every one of you said that there should be greater advertising restrictions for the e-cigarette vaping products and have it match the....

Do you have any understanding of why Health Canada wouldn't have adopted that, given that we all agree that nicotine in and of itself is a harmful substance?

[Lesley James, Senior Manager, Health Policy, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee. I'm Lesley James, senior manager of health policy at the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada. I'm also a doctoral researcher.

It's an honour to speak to you today about Bill S-5, a key piece of legislation in achieving Heart and Stroke's vision of a Canada free of commercial tobacco use.

Your committee will hear from many of our health coalition partners and tobacco control experts on this subject. Our common agreement is that we support aspects of Bill S-5 as related to plain and standardized packaging but have significant concerns with the bill's permissiveness around the wide-scale marketing of e-cigarettes. As such, we recommend amendments.

Bill S-5 represents an important step to strengthen tobacco control. It aims to protect the health of our children and youth from the industry tactics that target young Canadians and hook them to addictive and harmful products.

While Bill S-5 in its current form recognizes the power of tobacco marketing in appealing to young Canadians, it fails to protect that same vulnerable group as well as non-smokers from persuasive, e-cigarette advertising. In this regard, Bill S-5 contains a fundamental flaw, and we hope to see amendments made to address this disconnect between marketing restrictions.

The federal government has committed to a goal of less than 5% tobacco use by 2035. Despite efforts to reduce tobacco use in Canada, smoking rates remain unacceptably high at 17%. We support the 5% target and strongly believe that Bill S-5 is a key piece of legislation to achieve this target.

Getting to 5% is important because tobacco use remains the leading cause of premature death in Canada, killing over 45,000 Canadians each year; that's 120 of us every day. Nearly one in five deaths in Canada can be attributed to tobacco use. We have much work ahead of us, especially as it relates to young Canadians.

Smoking rates are greatest among young adults, aged 20 to 24, at 18.5%. Sadly, almost 10% of 15- to 19-year-olds in Canada identify as current smokers. We know that most smokers start as teenagers, but 20% of Canadians try their first cigarette as young adults.

How do we address this issue and reduce tobacco use among all Canadians, with a particular focus on youth and young adults? The answer is plain and simple. Heart and Stroke strongly encourages and supports the adoption and expedited implementation of plain and standardized tobacco packaging. Our organization has been urging for the adoption of this policy measure for decades, and I would like to show you why it's so important.

I have examples of packs sold in Canada. This is a pack targeted towards young men. We call it the hipster pack. It's trendy. It's kind of rustic looking. These ones are targeted towards young females. They're meant to look like cosmetics packages. The lipstick that I bought last week looks just like this. You can see that the product inside is equally as appealing as the outside. It's appealing and glamourous.

As a woman who understands and recognizes that these products shrewdly appeal to gender-specific beauty norms and ideals, I want to emphasize that these gender-oriented tactics, preying upon young and vulnerable women, are offensive, demeaning, and need to be stopped.

The use of the words “slim” and “vogue” along with the delicate but sparkly cigarette also demonstrate that the product itself should be mandated to be unappealing. This would entail banning slim cigarettes and would provide an opportunity to use the product itself for health messages.

As such, we ask for an amendment in this bill providing the regulatory authority to require health messaging on the product itself. This is already the case for e-cigarettes in this bill. Messages like “tobacco kills” or the promotion of cessation programs on each cigarette would be highly effective in dissuading use and increasing quit attempts.

Plain packaging has been endorsed by the World Health Organization and adopted in many countries. Evidence indicates it has a variety of benefits including accelerated declines in tobacco use, curbing deceptive marketing messages, increasing the visibility and effectiveness of health warnings, reducing the appeal of tobacco among youth, and increasing smoking cessation attempts.

After the policy's implementation in Australia, positive image associations across all tobacco brands fell, and the greatest decline was seen among adolescent smokers.

Concerns about contraband in relation to plain packaging are inaccurate, overstated, and exaggerated by the tobacco industry. Contraband concerns are often used as an industry narrative to stall tobacco control policies.

We applaud all parliamentarians for forging ahead with plain packaging and recognizing the tactics used by the tobacco industry and its front groups. Plain packaging is a powerful policy measure fully endorsed by Heart and Stroke and hundreds of health experts in Canada.

With regard to vaping products, Heart and Stroke's position on e-cigarettes has evolved over time with advances in research, and while the evidence regarding e-cigarettes continues to grow, there is still much left unknown. We continue to strive for a balance between potential risks and benefits and to that end it is important that regulations ensure product safety and protect Canadians against potential harm.

Experts agree that complete tobacco cessation over the long term rather than reducing the number of cigarettes smoked per day is the most effective way to reduce risk for disease and premature death. Heart and Stroke encourages people in Canada to strive for complete cessation as the best means of reducing tobacco-related illness.

We recommend Canadians use cessation tools like nicotine replacement therapy, quit medications, and counselling. Some Canadians may find cessation benefits for reductions in tobacco consumption from the use of vaping products, but in Canada, as elsewhere in the world, dual use of both e-cigarettes and tobacco is common, which puts into question the public health benefit of these devices.

Heart and Stroke agrees that e-cigarettes are less harmful than combustible tobacco, and for this reason we support increased access to e-cigarettes for adults. However, e-cigarettes are not without risk. Claims made by researchers that quantify the difference in associated harm between e-cigarettes and combustible tobacco are based on faulty methods and draw inappropriate conclusions.

We have known for years that e-cigarettes are appealing to Canadian youth. A study found that 18% of non-tobacco-using Canadian high school students had tried e-cigarettes and another 31% were interested in trying them. Current use of e-cigarettes among 15- to 19-year-olds has more than doubled in the past few years. Studies also show that more teens are using e-cigarettes, seeing them as cool and fun, and research in Canada shows a link between e-cigarette use among youth and later tobacco use.

We want to ensure that e-cigarettes do not result in nicotine addiction and tobacco use. It is essential that young Canadians be protected from marketing exposure aiming to increase the use of these products. Not only are there potential harms with the liquid constituents of vaping devices but we need to protect non-smokers and youth from nicotine, which will become legal and more readily available once Bill S-5 is passed. Nicotine is a highly addictive drug that increases blood pressure, makes your heart work harder, and can cause blood clots.

It is essential that Bill S-5 be amended to further restrict the marketing of e-cigarettes in Canada. In its current state, wide-scope marketing would be permitted for advertisements everywhere and anywhere, television, online, video and advergames, newspapers, magazines, billboards, public transit, social media, and the list goes on.

Of great concern is that marketing can happen in bars and night clubs, places where young people often congregate and are under the influence of alcohol. This can make them more susceptible to marketing messages and create opportunities for young Canadians to experiment with e-cigarettes. There is no need for marketing in places frequented by young people or the widespread marketing of vaping products to the general public. The only group that should be exposed to the marketing of these products are current tobacco smokers.

The proposed ban on lifestyle advertising will not be strong enough to protect young people from the multi-billion dollar marketing machinery of the industry. As such, we ask that Bill S-5 be amended in relation to vaping products to include strengthened restrictions on e-cigarette advertising to align with the restrictions in the Tobacco Act and proposed cannabis act and the removal of the provision that allows lifestyle advertising in bars and adult publications.

Heart and Stroke also formally endorses the recommendations proposed by the Canadian Cancer Society.

To conclude, Heart and Stroke strongly supports the proposed legislation related to plain and standardized packaging and is recommending amendments to increase the impact of the bill. We urge that this committee make Bill S-5 a key piece of legislation that truly protects our kids and prevents uptake by non-smokers in further restricting e-cigarette marketing.

In adopting these amendments, Bill S-5 will become a strong and powerful piece of legislation to drive down tobacco control and put the health of Canadians first.

Thank you for your time.

[Rob Cunningham, Senior Policy Analyst, Canadian Cancer Society]

Mr. Chair, committee members, my name is Rob Cunningham, a lawyer and senior policy analyst for the Canadian Cancer Society.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.

At the outset, we acknowledge the federal government and Health Minister Hon. Petitpas Taylor for their support in advancing tobacco control. We also acknowledge all parties in supporting Bill S-5 at second reading, and the role of all parties over decades to contribute to advancing tobacco control in Canada.

We support Bill S-5 and have a number of recommended amendments to improve the bill.

First, I will speak to plain and standardized packaging. This is a key tobacco control measure, including to protect youth. Canada will join the eight countries that have finalized plain packaging requirements: Australia, United Kingdom, France, Ireland, Norway, New Zealand, Hungary, and Slovenia, and the many more in progress.

This binder that has been distributed to you includes an international review of where things are at.

Plain packaging advances several objectives: reducing tobacco product appeal, curbing package deception, ending promotional aspects of packaging, improving health warning effectiveness, and reducing tobacco use. The package is the most important type of tobacco advertising that remains in Canada today. Tobacco is addictive and lethal and should not be sold in packages to be made more attractive, period.

Imperial Tobacco has stated there is no evidence to support plain packaging. In fact, the evidence is overwhelming. Beside me is an extensive 13-volume evidentiary compilation submitted to this committee. It is available for your review and consideration. The compilation contains abundant studies worldwide that provide compelling evidence that plain packaging would be effective. There are more than 150 studies and reports and other evidentiary items specifically on package promotion and plain packaging, not to mention a vast number on package warnings and other related packaging aspects. Distributed to you separately is a table of contents.

Of course plain packaging would be effective. Why else would the tobacco industry be so opposed?

Implementation of plain packaging in Australia has been a success, but the tobacco industry claims that plain packaging in Australia has been a failure, claims echoed by Sinclair Davidson, who will testify later today. Mr. Davidson is a senior research fellow with Australia's Institute of Public Affairs, an organization that has received tobacco industry funding. The real benefit of plain packaging will be seen over 20 years but the initial years are already encouraging. If I can invite members of the committee to turn to tab 4 in this binder, you will see a graph with respect to the trend in smoking prevalence in Australia. Plain packaging was implemented in 2012, and you see a decline in smoking prevalence after. It's not the case that smoking declines have stalled.

If we turn to the next page, this is for 18- and 19-year-olds. Again, we see a decline in smoking prevalence. This is the national drug strategy household survey. The sample size for youth is smaller, but the next page has a much bigger sample size; current smoking in 16- and 17-year-olds in Australia, and there's a decline. When smoking rates get low, even a couple of percentage points are very important in terms of potential health impact.

There are other graphs that follow different sample size to the extent that they're reliable, and there's caution, but they're encouraging.

In France, the tobacco industry points to a decline in cigarette sales of 0.7% in the 12 months following implementation of plain packaging on January 1, 2017 to say that plain packaging is not working. However, there was also a decline of 5.1 % in roll-your-own tobacco, an important category in France. When considering population growth, the per capita declines are about 2% and 6%. Those numbers do not take into account inventory movements and changes in contraband levels, which can distort things. Just prior to implementation, retailers would have decreased their purchases to get rid of old stock and not to be stuck with things that would be redundant. After January 1, they had to replenish their inventory, so that distorts things.

The French government has strongly supported plain packaging and in 2015 even hosted a 10-country ministerial meeting to promote plain packaging with ministers of health from other governments.

One claim that has been raised is that, with plain packaging, it will take more time for a store employee to retrieve a package for a customer. This has not been the case in Australia, where many retailers simply place brands in alphabetical order. Studies in Australia found that there was actually a decrease in the time it took to retrieve a package.

Regarding contraband, industry claims should be disregarded as without merit for numerous reasons. Tab 3 of the binder responds to their claims. Keep in mind that the three major tobacco companies in Canada in 2008 and 2010 were convicted of contraband and paid fines and civil settlements of $1.7 billion.

The only reports cited to support the claim that plain packaging increases contraband are funded by the tobacco industry. KPMG, author of various reports, was forced to take the unusual step of writing to the British health minister denying that its report indicated that plain packaging increased contraband, as the industry has cited. The report found no counterfeit products, none, packaged for the Australian market. The total volume of all contraband in 2016 of 2.3 million kilograms was less than the 2.4 million kilograms in 2010 prior to plain packaging.

Imperial Tobacco argues that taking the brand name and logo off cigarettes will cause contraband. This is not the case. In part, companies will be allowed to place an alphanumeric indicator on cigarettes unique to each brand, as is done in Australia. There should also be a mandatory marking, something that Ms. Gladu and other members of Parliament raised during second reading debate. Such a marking would provide an indication as to what is intended for legitimate sale in Canada and would assist responding to contraband concerns. The best mandatory marking would be a health warning, a measure supported by research.

An amendment to the bill should provide regulatory authority to allow health warnings directly on tobacco products themselves, in addition to packages, just as the bill currently does for vaping products.

Our recommended amendments to the bill are included at tab 1 of the binder.

A further amendment should provide regulatory authority that some or all of the provisions of the act in the future could apply to herbal products for smoking, including herbal water pipe products. Water pipe use, hookah, is on the increase among youth and needs a response. An amendment should modify the process to adopt regulations under the Tobacco Act. It should no longer be necessary to submit regulations to the House of Commons for approval. Almost no other federal legislation has such a requirement, which inhibits effective and rapid responses that are essential when dealing with an epidemic.

Regarding e-cigarettes, we recognize that e-cigarettes are less harmful than conventional cigarettes, and we support the changed regulatory status in S-5. Through Bill S-5, the government is making e-cigarettes available as a less harmful product to smokers unable to quit. At the same time, the government recognizes that there are potential negative risks. Legislation is needed to deal with those potential risks, such as youth use, as well as marketing tactics that would discourage cessation where that would appeal to ex-smokers and non-smokers. Many of the bill's e-cigarette advertising restrictions are weak compared to other jurisdictions.

An amendment should ban all lifestyle advertising. Examples could include tropical beaches, sports cars, and glasses of wine by a romantic sunset—examples allowed by this bill. The Canadian Vaping Association, in Senate committee testimony, supported a lifestyle ban.

An amendment should clearly specify that the only advertising allowed is information advertising or brand preference advertising. This is reasonable. This is in fact the government's stated intent, but the intent is not reflected in the bill's current wording. Again, the Canadian Vaping Association testified that it wanted advertising limited to information advertising.

An amendment should further curtail sales promotions, such as e-cigarette purchases giving a chance to win a free vacation or tickets to a rock concert. Again these are lifestyle associations.

An amendment should restrict the location of permitted advertising and thus reduce youth exposure, though still permitting advertising to adult audiences. At present there is no restriction in the bill whatsoever on location; it's weaker than for tobacco or cannabis. Advertising is allowed on television, public transit, bus shelters, billboards, comic books—virtually everywhere.

Other countries, such as New Zealand, that are legalizing e-cigarettes with nicotine will ban e-cigarette advertising while allowing some at retail, in a way that matches provisions for tobacco.

What we have in Bill S-5 is provisions so weak that they're comparable to the 1964 Canadian tobacco industry voluntary code. They are very weak, even when you consider proposed regulations that the government has released for consultation.

Even with the proposed amendments on e-cigarette promotion, federal and provincial legislation would still allow retail displays and the provision of product information in specialty vape shops as well as in other specified locations.

We urge support for Bill S-5 and our proposed amendments. Bill S-5 is a critical component to a renewed and strengthened federal tobacco control strategy.

Before concluding, I would like to comment on the claim by Rothmans, Benson & Hedges that they want to end smoking and stop cigarette sales. This is a public relations claim; it is not believable. Why are they not supporting plain packaging for cigarettes, if that is their objective? Why are they funding convenience store associations to talk about contraband and to oppose tax increases for cigarettes?

Tab 5 of your binder shows the global campaign for Marlboro with lifestyle advertising—the “Be Marlboro” campaign. This is not a company that's sincere about ending cigarette sales, when they have advertising like that. This is a company that today, on packages of Canadian Classics, has a mountain lake scene that looks like Banff or Lake Louise. That's a lifestyle association. It's an example of why we need plain packaging.

They sell Benson & Hedges super slim cigarettes, which are very appealing to young girls and women. Those should be banned.

We have other companies.... For example, this is a company that has marshmallows over a campfire; this is Pall Mall. It's an association with lifestyle that is very appealing, and plain packaging would deal with it.

Just as a final example, because there are so many of them, this example is from Rothmans, Benson & Hedges. They have a package of cigarettes, but with a sleeve that has advertising. That's how they get around restrictions on bans on billboards.

This is an opportunity for us to implement plain packaging.

We express our appreciation to all committee members for the opportunity to appear.

Thank you.

[Neil Collishaw, Research Director, Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Honourable members, thank you for your invitation to present our views on Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Tobacco Act and the Non-smokers’ Health Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

I am the research director at Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada. Although I'm not a doctor, I have been working for 35 years in the area of tobacco control. I worked at Health Canada in the 1980s and at the World Health Organization in the 1990s.

Bill S-5 will legitimize what is currently a grey market for vaping products. It will give some clarification that facilitates the introduction of plain packaging and will make a small number of other important advances for tobacco control. Sadly, however, the bill, as currently drafted, contains unnecessary risks to public health. If these flaws are not corrected, we predict that the bill will create more problems than it solves.

The fundamental flaw in the bill is that it opens the door too wide for the promotion of vaping products. One consequence of legalizing vaping products is whether it will invite tobacco companies into the Canadian market with new vaping products. They do not participate now in the grey market.

Royal assent on this bill will be the starting gun for the race to sell as many of these products as they can, using every marketing tool that this law will hand them. The bill hands them too many such tools. As currently drafted, it will allow them to advertise on television, radio, billboards and retail outlets, social media, direct mail, text messaging, contests, and giveaways. Once again, girls in skimpy outfits could be sent into bars to offer samples to patrons. We have seen the same companies use these same tools to recruit and addict previous generations to nicotine.

Our recommendation for minimizing this risk is simple: restrict advertising for vaping products the same way it is restricted for tobacco, which, you will remember from your review of Bill C-45, is also under the same types of restrictions that are in place for cannabis. Permit only information and brand advertising advertisements and allow that only in a very few places. Even if the marketing rules are the same, vaping products will still enjoy a marketplace advantage over tobacco products as they will be sold in branded packages with lesser health warnings and without taxes. We are not alone in making this recommendation. Most major health organizations also suggest that vaping products be subject to similar restrictions.

In response to these concerns, the Senate adopted the amendments proposed by the health department to give the government regulatory authority to curb advertising of vaping products in case things went wrong. A few months later Health Canada issued a consultation paper on the types of regulations it was considering, and these were a throwback. They were very similar to those that the tobacco industry used to govern itself in place for cigarettes in the 1960s and 1970s.

Restricting television advertising to certain times of day, billboards to certain distances from schools are not good enough, and we know this from bitter experience. No one should be encouraging a consumer product that has a better than 30% chance of addicting people to lifelong use. Regulations cannot put the advertising genie back in the bottle. We need to restrict advertising for vaping products now, not later; and we need to do it strongly, not weakly.

If this bill passes as currently drafted, Canada will be virtually alone in allowing such liberalized rules for promoting vaping products. Most OECD countries that allow vaping products to be sold apply similar advertising restrictions to those that exist for tobacco. Only the U.S.A. allows largely unrestricted advertising for vaping products, and what has this meant for young Americans? Well, I think the title of the December 2016 press release from the U.S. Surgeon General is the answer: “Surgeon General Reports Youth and Young Adult E-Cigarette Use Poses a Public Health Threat”.

Now I turn to another flaw in BillS-5, one that could be described as a serious omission.

While opening the door to vaping products and their advertising, Bill S-5 fails to start closing the door to other tobacco products. Bill S-5 legalizes vaping products in the hope that they will offer some reduction from the harm that tobacco causes. It's a nice hope and I hope it comes true, but it's still only a hope. To guarantee that harm will be reduced, we need a plan to get rid of the conventional cigarette.

A few months ago the U.S. pushed forward with its vision of how to ensure that the benefits of less harmful forms of nicotine use were accompanied by a reduction in the use of the most harmful forms. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced a comprehensive harm reduction framework in July 2017 in which they plan to reduce the amount of nicotine in conventional cigarettes as a way of shifting smokers to less harmful forms. Because of particularities of American law and regulation, the FDA is constrained on how it can regulate cigarettes and they have chosen nicotine reduction because basically the law doesn't allow them to have any other options. But in Canada we do—you do, as legislators.

We can follow and improve on the American lead by creating a harm reduction framework that aims to reduce the supply and demand for cigarettes by using a range of approaches. These might include cap and trade programs, financial incentives, performance requirements, and other modern regulatory tools. The government has set a goal of achieving less than 5% tobacco use prevalence by 2035, “less than 5 by 35”, but so far it seems to be less of a plan and more of a slogan. However, there is now an opportunity through Bill S-5 to establish a harm reduction framework that will ensure that legalizing vaping helps reduce smoking.

Here are some key changes that we are proposing in very much summary form: expand the purpose of the act to include reducing the burden of disease, preventing addition to nicotine, and achieving the minister's goal of less than 5 by 35; expand the scope of the act once again to establish regulatory authority over new heat-not-burn products as well as other new tobacco products that may be introduced in the future; and impose new requirements and obligations on the tobacco industry.

We have prepared detailed suggestions for how these changes could be introduced during clause-by-clause review of the bill, and I will be happy to share our suggestions with you later on.

This committee can greatly assist in achieving the goal of less than 5 by 35. Don't allow Bill S-5 to be passed without the safeguards needed to protect young people and others from tobacco and nicotine industry marketing. Make sure that Bill S-5 is a step towards ending the sale of combustible tobacco products and not a way to recruit future smokers.

Thank you for your attention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

We'll call our meeting to order. Welcome, everybody, to the 89th meeting of the Standing Committee on Health.

Today, we're starting a new study on Bill S-5, an act to amend the Tobacco Act and the Non-smokers' Health Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

It looks as though our witnesses today have brought lots of homework for us. From Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada, we have Neil Collishaw, research director. From the Canadian Cancer Society, we have Rob Cunningham, senior policy analyst. From the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, we have Lesley James, senior manager, health policy. As an individual, we have Dr. Gaston Ostiguy, chest physician, associate professor and past director of the smoking cessation clinic, McGill University.

Welcome, everyone. We'll ask each of you to make an opening statement of no more than 10 minutes and then we'll go to questions. We'll start with Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada.

Canada Elections Act

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise and speak and contribute to debate in this place on behalf of the people of Portage—Lisgar.

It seems that too often these days I feel I am standing, whether in question period or during debate, and we are talking about ethical lapses that the current government is showing. I find it disappointing. I think that Canadians are disappointed. However, it seems that more frequently we are talking about some of these conflicts of interest and ethical lapses. Sadly, with Bill C-50, there is no exception to this pattern.

We hear the Liberals portraying themselves as being cloaked in virtue as they discuss the bill on political financing. What Liberals and especially the Prime Minister are very good at is talking a good game. Saying all the right things is the Prime Minister's forte. Doing the right thing, not so much. The Prime Minister, on so many issues around ethics, says one thing with his words and a completely different thing with his actions. Bill C-50 is no different, and the backstory to the proposed legislation is even more telling.

The House will recall how the Liberals were creating for themselves a big ethical crater, because literally the moment they got into government, they began setting up and holding their cash for access fundraisers. Members will remember the Minister of Justice being the guest of honour at a fundraiser held at a Bay Street law firm in Toronto, which was targeting members of the legal community, the very people she was making decisions for and about, including appointing to the bench. She was selling access to herself to these individuals. It was absolutely shocking. Members may also remember the parliamentary secretary, the MP who was the Liberal point man on legalizing pot, as the main attraction who was then lobbied by marijuana advocates and investors at a fundraiser.

Members will remember the Prime Minister himself travelling the land and appearing at more $1,500 fundraisers than any of us can count. These were not just one-offs; there was not just one fundraiser that he went to. The Prime Minister, as we all know, has gone to more fundraisers, and $1,500-a-head fundraisers, than any of us can count. Of course, there was the ultimate cash for access trade-off, where the Prime Minister and his wife called and asked the Aga Khan if they could use his private island for free while, at the same time, he was asking them for public money. Wow, a free island holiday for access to the Prime Minister, and a personal benefit to the Prime Minister. However, I will get to that one a little later.

The Prime Minister has done more cash for access events than any of us care to count, but we all remember the one that came to light where the Prime Minister sold access to himself when he met a wealthy tycoon who was the principal investor in a bank that was seeking federal approval to begin operations. That was a bad idea. He was at another one of these events when the Prime Minister met a Chinese billionaire who also was asking for some government favours. Lo and behold, just weeks later, he made a quarter of a million dollar donation for a statue of the Prime Minister's father, and a donation to the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation. It is “You give me this. I'll give you that. You give me cash. I'll give you access. You give me cash. You have my ear.”

On another occasion, a Quebec businessman in the vaping industry bought a ticket to speak to the Prime Minister about Bill S-5. In fact, the gentleman told Global News, “ I saw an open door and I walked through it – and I’ll walk through every open door I see.... I took $250 out of my own pocket to accomplish what I needed to accomplish..”. He got access to the Prime Minister.

What is the problem with Bill C-50? In a nutshell, it would formalize and try to legitimize these cash for access fundraisers. As I said, it attempts to confer a veneer of legitimacy upon them. What Bill C-50 would not do is make these fundraisers legally ethical. They are unethical. Changing the rules to allow deep-pocket individuals to meet the Prime Minister to bend his ear on government business is still wrong.

If the Prime Minister would like to shut down his cash for access fundraisers for the Liberal Party, he would stop doing them. He could tell his cabinet the same thing, to stop doing these fundraisers. He could maybe follow his own guidelines.

Let me read from the Prime Minister's own “Open and Accountable Government” document. He told his ministers, under “Fundraising and Dealing with Lobbyists: Best Practices for Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries, the following: “Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries must ensure that political fundraising activities or considerations do not affect, or appear to affect, the exercise of their official duties or the access of individuals or organizations to government.” Wow, everything I just described moments ago is contrary to what this “Open and Accountable Government” code does.

This does not require legislation; it needs conviction and integrity. It needs men and women and a government that is authentic and genuine and does not just say the right words but does the right thing. That is not what the Liberals and the Prime Minister seem to do.

Why could the Prime Minister not have said he would follow the rules like everyone else? Why could the Prime Minister not have just said this: “I put this out. It makes sense. I have asked my ministers to follow these guidelines. We're going to follow them.” Obviously, it is because the Prime Minister thinks that rules do not apply to him. We have seen this over and over with the Prime Minister. He thinks there is one set of rules for one group of people and another set of rules for him.

That brings me to another point, and it is with regard to a provision in Bill C-50 that I want to highlight for the House. Clause 2 in the bill would, among other things, enact a new section, 384.4, of the Canada Elections Act. I am going to summarize briefly what this would do.

Section 384.4 would basically put into legislation that if a registered party received a contribution that does not comply with the act, that party would have 30 days to either return that contribution to the donor or pay it to the Receiver General of Canada. The principle behind this is that in the event of a breach of the fundraising rules, the message is clear and the law is clear that the money must be paid back. That is in the bill we are currently discussing. If a party receives money that it is not entitled to, that party cannot just apologize and then smile. It has to pay that money back. That is not a revolutionary idea. Although we have some concerns with Bill C-50, this provision makes sense.

This is not revolutionary. If people are caught taking something that does not belong to them, they give it back, pay it back; they make restitution. We teach our children that when they take something that does not belong to them, they have to make amends, and that includes saying sorry. More importantly, and maybe the toughest part of saying sorry, is actually making it right.

These are rules and lessons that we as parents, as society, and certainly as leaders in this place should be adhering to. However, we are seeing a stunningly hypocritical exception to this principle, and that is with the Prime Minister.

When the former Ethics Commissioner handed down her report which determined that the Prime Minister had violated the Conflict of Interest Act, the House will recall that what he did cost taxpayers over $200,000. If the Prime Minister is truly sorry and wants to be transparent, if he truly wants to put action behind his words, then he needs to right the wrong he has committed. He needs to pay back the taxpayer. He also should look seriously at making the wrong right. He should make the wrong right by paying back the value of that holiday. That is one of the principles of making restitution. If somebody takes a painting that does not belong to that individual, then he or she has to give that painting back or pay back the value of that painting.

It is one thing to talk about legislation like this, but the Liberals are still having their cash for access events. This legislation would do nothing to stop it. We have good rules in place. All we need are men and women of integrity and honour to follow those rules and then show leadership. When they have done something wrong, stop doing it and make it right. That is what we are asking the Prime Minister to do. I would think that all Liberals would agree, as would everyone in the House. We are asking the Prime Minister to not only be sorry but to make right the wrong that he has done.

I expect that the Liberals will not be asking me questions about that, but I would ask them to think about that. In their own meetings with the Prime Minister, ask him to do the right thing: make this right.