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.

Cigar Packaging

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to rise in the House to present a petition signed by cigar aficionados in Alfred-Pellan.

These people purchase cigars to smoke them, but also to offer them as gifts. They are therefore concerned about the impact of neutral packaging for cigars, as provided for in Bill S-5.

Thus the citizens in my riding call upon the government to exempt premium cigars from the proposed tobacco products regulations.

Accessible Canada Act

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada.

I want to say at the outset that I am pleased to see that the minister has brought forward this bill. I have absolutely no doubt about her sincerity in trying to improve the lives of people with disabilities. I too am aligned in that direction. I have listened carefully to the debate we have had so far talking about how to get people with disabilities the same rights and responsibilities as other citizens, how to make sure they are able to live independently and how to make sure they are free from violence. I am aligned in all those things. I think I have heard that all the parties in the House are aligned in how we improve the lives of people with disabilities, and what we can we do with this bill to make sure it is effective.

When it comes to deciding to tackle an issue, with my engineering perspective I will ask what it is we are trying to do. I think it is trying to get people to be able to live independently, to have the same rights and responsibilities as others and to be free from violence. What is the plan to make that happen? What mechanisms will we put in place in order to make sure the money or the incentives flow so the behaviours of people will take root?

In my speech, I am going to talk a bit about what has happened in the past and what the Conservatives did. Then I will talk a little about the Liberal record. Then I will talk about the situation in my own riding, some ideas about possible solutions and some concerns I have with the legislation as it is written today.

I know things were going on to help improve accessibility when the Conservatives were in power. Although I was not here myself, I saw all the announcements and improvements happening in my own riding of Sarnia—Lambton, where multiple millions of dollars were spent to upgrade different buildings to ensure they were accessible for people in wheelchairs and to put different aids in place to help people with disabilities. I note that was going on.

At the same time, we have heard other members in the House talk about the Conservative Party's introduction of the registered disability savings plan in 2008. This plan is quite a rich plan. I looked at the details of it when we were addressing an issue that I will talk about later. However, this is a plan where a disabled person can put in up to $5,000 a year and the government will match it threefold. That program has been going on for almost 10 years. Although it has not come to the point where people are collecting from the program, it is a very well thought out way of ensuring people with disabilities will have the wherewithal to retire in dignity.

I see that and see the efforts of the member for Carleton, who brought forward a very intelligent bill aimed at addressing the problem people with disabilities have when they want to go work and their benefits are clawed back. In some cases, the money they are getting from other disability programs is clawed back. I was really disappointed in the extreme that every Liberal in the place rejected that private member's bill. That bill would have been such a help to people with disabilities. We talked as well about the member for Calgary Shepard bringing forward a private member's bill on rare diseases, which was also rejected. I just heard a member from the NDP talking about her bill being rejected.

This is where one really has to question people's motives. When people say one thing and do another, they are likely to be called hypocrites. When I look at the Liberals, I see there is a lot of talking about helping people with disabilities, but then we look at the record of what has happened since the election in 2015. The first member who had the portfolio to do something here on accessibility, or helping the disabled, was the member for Calgary Centre. It was in the mandate letter, yet nothing was done. That member is also a person who has lived experience as a person with disabilities, but nothing was done. It was not a priority.

It was then passed along to the member for Etobicoke North. However, I do sympathize with her. She is the Minister of Science and has a lot of very important things to do which, of course, I, as a fellow science person, cannot criticize. Again, nothing really came forward.

Then when I looked at the bill to see what was in it, I thought that perhaps there would be a lot of infrastructure money. We know there are a lot of buildings that are not accessible and they need a lot of money in order to repair them so they will be accessible. In some cases, those could be incentives. There is a number of ways that could be done, but nothing in the bill talks about that.

In fact, the bill has sort of an element of what the minister's powers would be. It has an element of a standards organization that can talk about what the right thing to do would be. There are mechanisms in the bill to complain. There are mechanisms in it to inspect. However, there are no action words. There is really no doing of anything. It is going to be consulting and spending a few more years to try to figure out what we should do, when we already know some of the things we should do. Some of the things we should do involves investing the same kind of infrastructure money that was previously done under the Conservatives.

I have heard the government speak about the $180 billion of infrastructure money that it will invest over the next number of years. In fact, the Liberals got elected on a promise to spend very small deficits in order to put infrastructure in place. That was going to create jobs and drive the economy and repair our roads and bridges, etc. None of that ever happened. My point is that there was a lot of infrastructure money that was planned to be spent. Even though the government has had difficulty getting that accomplished, as I think it has only spent about 40% of what it planned, it has still racked up way more deficit but not on the intended things.

There is an opportunity for the government to do something immediately with respect to infrastructure to improve accessibility. Those are things where the building codes exist today. The specifications exist today. The standards exist today. No work needs to be done to consult anybody on that or have new standard organizations to do it. This already exists. All it really needs is political will to put that money in place.

Instead, the government has basically a different political will, if we look at where the billions of dollars that the government is spending is going: $4.2 billion on foreign aid; $2.65 billion on climate change support for foreign countries like China and India; $5 billion for the Syrian refugees; $1 billion for the asylum seekers; and multiple billions of other things that are spread around the world but not for Canadians and not for the disabled. When we look at where time, energy and money is put, that determines what our values are or what our priorities are.

It has been three years before seeing any kind of legislation and the legislation does not have any strong actions in it. It is more of “we'll put structures in place to consult”. I really question whether there is enough political will to achieve good outcomes here.

As I mentioned, I have some good examples from my riding that I can share. I know that the previous member of Parliament, Pat Davidson, was very active. She really cared about improving accessibility. Elevators were put in multiple buildings. We had accessibility all over the county of Lambton. As well, we have upgraded many of the schools to be accessible.

The Sarnia Arena is going under remediation. I was there for an event this past weekend and all of the entrances and front sidewalks, etc. have been improved for accessibility and all of the standards have been met.

Not everything is wonderful in my riding. We have a situation in Port Lambton where the post office, which is a Crown corporation and is under the legislation being proposed, is not accessible. It has been there for a long period of time and was grandfathered, but it is not accessible. We are having a municipal election and people are going to have to go to Canada Post to vote. In Port Lambton that is pretty much all there is. However, it is not accessible. People have known about it for a long time. My office has called and nagged and has been told that they will get to it. However, no one has got to it.

Here is an example where the solution is known. It just needs to get done and it needs to get done in a hurry. Again, where is the will to force these solutions to happen?

I have a tremendously great example of a fellow named Dan Edwards in my riding. Unfortunately, he had an accident which rendered him unable to walk and left him in a wheelchair. He has been super inspirational in the riding. He does fundraising for mental health efforts and different things.

This is one of the things he did. We have a fundraiser in Sarnia—Lambton called the Dream Home. It is a fundraiser for the hospital. He decided to get together with the architect who was going to build the latest Dream Home for a lottery to raise money for the hospital and decided to make it a visitable home. A visitable home is a home where any person in a wheelchair would be fully able to access everything, from cooking to the entrances. Everything is ground floor. It is very well done.

I had the opportunity to tour the home and see what he and architect had designed together. He shared with me a lot of information about the very many plans like this. It is quite possible. We have these solutions that we could put in place to allow people to live independently. That would be great. Again, money and political will is some of what is required here.

The other piece of advice I would give with respect to solutions and rolling out the infrastructure money is to ensure that it is well-distributed. Of the $180 billion that was announced over 10 years, only $2 billion of that was earmarked for rural communities. When we look at improving accessibility, I think we will find that there is even more need in the rural communities. In many cases, they have grandfathered their buildings. There are more older buildings, and they have not been made accessible. As well, there is less of a population base to bring in the revenue to do these things of their own volition. That needs to be considered.

With respect to some concerns about the legislation, $290 million has been proposed. I heard discussion earlier about 5,000 new public servants. I was not clear if that was 5,000 public servants with disabilities who would be hired while attrition happened, so over time, or whether that was 5,000 additional public service employees. Of course, I would be opposed to increasing the size of government.

Another concern I have with the bill has to do with leaving things for the regulations. As a parliamentarian, and a detailed-oriented one, I do not like to leave things to chance. I have seen before, under some of the legislation that the Liberals have brought forward, where it is all left to regulation.

With Bill S-5, for example, the Liberals decided, from the plain packaging and the vaping, they were going to leave a lot of it to the regulations. We were approving a bill, and as the point was made, that we really did not know what the final outcomes would be. We were going to leave it to the regulation.

In the example of Bill S-5, the Liberals want to go to a plain package. The dimensions of the plain package are produced by machines that are obsolete, that are no longer owned by anybody who is legitimately in the business. The Liberals have given businesses six months to convert.

They would have to redesign the old, obsolete machines and get them built somewhere, and that is certainly an 18-month deal, or they would have to be shut down altogether in order to achieve this plain packaging goal, or let them use the existing size. That is an example of where when things are left to regulations, they do not always get done the way that we might want. That is why parliamentary oversight is important.

Bill C-45, the cannabis legislation, is another example where the Liberals decided to leave a lot of the details to the regulation. The problem is that the regulations did not come out quickly enough to address all the unanswered questions that were still out there. Now we are left with a situation where we will legalize on October 17, and there is still a huge number of things that are not addressed in the regulations. Again, there is no parliamentary oversight to talk about them.

This point came up again on Bill S-228 with the regulation that we most recently talked about, which is the one that prohibits the marketing of unhealthy foods to children. Instead of defining what the healthy foods are, the comment was that it would be left to the regulations.

As parliamentarians, we have a right to know what that list will be and have some opportunity to object or give input if we do not agree. By leaving it to the regulations, we would be passing a blank bill that says we would be doing something. We have no idea what the something is and we have no input on the something, but we are expected to vote in favour of it. I have an issue with that.

When it comes to accessibility, we have been much too slow in moving forward and addressing these things. For example, there are a lot of the grandfathered buildings. My mother is 84 and walks with a rollator. There are a lot of places she cannot go because of staircases or it is too narrow to get through. Something needs to be done there and I look forward to seeing what solutions will be brought forward are.

I will talk a little about some of the things the government could do that would make people have more faith in its wanting to help disabled people.

Members may remember when I was here on a Friday, asking a question about the disability tax credit. Through that whole event, we found out that where 80% of people with type 2 diabetes were previously approved, all of a sudden 80% were disapproved. We raised the concern, and the Liberal government insisted that nothing had changed. Of course, as the scandal went on, it came out that indeed things had changed. There were instructions given to interpret the criteria differently, and it went very broad. It affected not just people with diabetes but people with other disabilities, such as autism and mental disorders like bipolar. It took months and months to get justice for those people. This is what undermines people's faith that the government is sincere in its efforts to improve things for people with disabilities.

I will give members another example. For people with multiple sclerosis, it can be very difficult, because people are not always be at the same degree of wellness. It is sort of intermittent where there may be periods where they cannot work and other times they may be fine.

However, the current EI rules are not flexible enough to allow a person who has MS to be on EI and work intermittently, the same total benefits as someone who takes it consecutively would get. I raised this issue with the Minister of Labour. There is an easy fix there. If 670 hours of eligibility are required and there is a certain amount of hours that people get in benefits, then allow the intermittency. Those are the kinds of things we can do for people who have disabilities to be able to live independently, to work and to engage. We need to do that.

I did take the point that was made earlier that no disability lens was used for the legislation. When we do legislation, we do it with a gender-based lens. Therefore, it is very appropriate here to take that recommendation from the member and put a disability lens in place.

I also do not like the powers to exempt in the bill. I find that when we allow exemptions and have cabinet decide, we get into trouble. We saw this with the carbon tax. The government had the power to exempt and it decided to exempt the largest emitters up to 90% of their emissions. There is an example where having the power to exempt is really not what we want.

In summary, I absolutely want to see persons with disabilities have the independence they need and have the help they need. However, it has to happen faster. I call on the government today to start putting money into infrastructure for accessibility and do the solutions that we already know about, while we craft improvements to the bill.

Child Health Protection Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope that you had a good summer. I certainly did.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill S-228, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act by prohibiting food and beverage marketing directed at children.

I would like to begin by thanking many individuals and groups for their ongoing efforts on this bill. First, I would like to thank Senator Nancy Greene Raine, now retired, for her years of service and her ongoing commitment to the health and well-being of Canadians, particularly the health of children. I would also like to thank members from all parties and the many witnesses for their passion and expertise.

Basically, Bill S-228 seeks to prohibit food and beverage marketing directed at persons under the age of 13. The bill's introduction in the House is rather timely because its objective can be found in the Minister of Health's mandate letter. Although this bill is well intentioned and seeks to combat childhood obesity, many stakeholders and witnesses expressed their concerns about the scope of the bill and its potential unintended consequences.

Similar legislation already exists in Quebec, which is often cited as an example. Quebec passed legislation in 1980 to ban advertising aimed at children aged 13 and under. To be clear, while it is true that Quebec has one of the lowest obesity rates in Canada, that is not necessarily a consequence of the ban on advertising targeting young people.

At a committee meeting, I asked witnesses from Quebec's Weight Coalition whether the obesity rate went down after Quebec passed the legislation. One witness replied as follows:

The Quebec act, which dates from 1980, was not passed to reduce obesity, but for ethical reasons and because of the vulnerability issues involving all forms of advertising. In terms of data on obesity, we were unfortunately unable to measure them in the past.

This comparison was repeated over and over again during consideration of the bill. However, someone who is rarely quoted is Ronald Lund, who appeared before the committee and told us that Quebec's obesity rate is quite similar to that of the rest of the country.

He said, “In fact, in terms of how fast it exploded and where it is today, the rates of obesity and overweight[edness] in Quebec are basically not statistically different from the rest of Canada.”

I think it is off the website now, but one can still find the link on Quebec's Ministry of Health's own website. It talks about the great increase since 1978 and adds that the good news is that rates there are not significantly different from those in the rest of Canada. Despite a homegrown test, the obesity rates in Quebec are not dramatically different.

Therefore, when we approach Bill S-228 and talk about the legislation, I am just not sure that it is going to work, though I am firmly behind its premise that we want to reduce obesity in children, as we know that childhood obesity is a predeterminate of very chronic disease as they get older.

Certainly, I think there are some problems with the bill, and I am going to address several of those.

First, there was an allusion to the definition of healthy food not being nailed down. At committee we talked about making the definition potentially the same as for front-of-pack labelling, where things high in salt, sugar, or saturated fats would be considered unhealthy. However, that could not be agreed upon, and there is currently no agreement about the definition.

The Liberal government is content to leave that to the regulations, but I think we can see the same problem with regulations that Health Canada is having when considering the Canada food guide and front-of-pack labelling. For example, there are situations where apple strudel would be considered healthy but cheese would not be. Therefore, I really think that not having a definition of healthy food is a weakness in this proposed legislation.

Second, if we are trying to make sure that children under the age of 13 are not exposed to the advertising of whatever we determine unhealthy food to be, the enforcement of that is going to be extremely difficult. For example, as per the conversations we had, does that mean television ads after nine o'clock at night could potentially be allowed to advertise some of these things? The problem is that there are parents who are not parenting well or are allowing their children to stay up past nine o'clock, and so we cannot really be sure at any point in time that we would not be targeting that audience. What about signs? What about billboards? I mean, there would not really be an opportunity to enforce this without a huge number of people basically policing all forms of media.

We know that things put in place by the Liberal government have not been well enforced and we expect to see further ones. For example, with the forthcoming marijuana legislation, clearly there was an effort made to restrict advertising to make sure that it did not appear to be cool to smoke marijuana. However, the government did nothing with enforcement with regard to the huge number of T-shirts and other paraphernalia that exist. The Senate brought an amendments, which were not accepted. Again, there is no enforcement. With respect to Bill S-5, the proposed tobacco legislation, we know that enforcement activity is needed when people who are not authorized to produce and distribute are doing it. However, the 60% cigarette contraband rate in Ontario, for example, and I think 30% or 40% across the country, shows a lack of enforcement. Therefore, I really think that this proposed piece of legislation would definitely have difficulty with enforcement.

Also, do we really need to have the government telling us what we can and cannot eat? I am all about personal freedom and individual accountability. When I was growing up, we had all the sugared cereals. We had Tony the Tiger, Froot Loops, Lucky Charms, Alpha-Bits, and I consumed all of those, along with toast dipped in maple syrup. My mother made us bologna sandwiches. However, I can tell members that there was not a lot of obesity, because we were all outside running around and playing. Therefore, if the government really wants to address obesity, I think the call to action should be to get young people active again. When I was growing up, there was a federal program in place called ParticipACTION, which was designed to get people out and running around. I certainly think that would be more effective in achieving results.

Members can see from my earlier testimony that many people from Quebec are saying that the rates there are not different from those in the rest of Canada. Therefore, this legislation is not going to have the impact we would want it to have.

As well, the senator who introduced this proposed legislation is a multiple Olympic champion. She was fit, and even in her senior years she was driving fitness activities here on the Hill. However, I would point out that she did choose in her career to advertise Mars bars, and I do not think anyone thought it was a problem for an athlete to do that. However, she had the personal freedom to choose that, and now she wants to remove that personal freedom from other athletes who may choose to do that. I certainly am able to exercise, eat occasionally at McDonald's, and eat chips from time to time. It is a balance. I think it is a question of moderation.

Therefore, for all of the reasons I have cited, including the difficulties in enforcing the proposed legislation, the fact that I do not believe the legislation would work, and the government's interference where I believe there should be personal freedom, individual accountability, and good parenting, I will not be supporting this legislation.

World No Tobacco Day

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate World No Tobacco Day.

As we know, tobacco is the leading preventable cause of disease and premature death in Canada.

That is why our government is committed to passing Bill S-5 to protect the health of Canadians, especially youth.

I am proud to see that it received royal assent last week.

With budget 2018, our government is renewing and enhancing the federal tobacco control strategy by investing over $80 million.

In addition to helping Canadians stop smoking, this investment will support prevention efforts and reduce contraband tobacco. The goal is to get more Canadians to quit and reduce smoking deaths.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received, as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

May 23, 2018

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Julie Payette, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the schedule to this letter on the 23rd day of May, 2018, at 14:12 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Assunta Di Lorenzo

The bills assented to were Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Tobacco Act and the Non-smokers’ Health Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 9, and Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and other Acts respecting transportation and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 10.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify today.

The focus of my testimony will be part 2 of the bill, clauses 47 to 67, implementing a $1-per-carton increase in tobacco taxes and modifying the inflation indexing for tobacco taxes from every five years to every year. We applaud these measures and urge all committee members to support these provisions. Tobacco products remain the leading cause of preventable disease and death in Canada, killing 45,000 Canadians annually and causing about 30% of all cancer deaths.

We also strongly support the federal budget provisions that provide increased investment in the federal tobacco control strategy. This is essential as part of the efforts to meet the objective of reducing tobacco use to under 5% by 2035. There are still more than five million Canadians who smoke. There are teenagers starting to smoke every month. We have made considerable progress, but enormous work remains.

The budget measures regarding tobacco taxes and funding of the strategy are complemented by Bill S-5, adopted at third reading by the House of Commons last week, and by pending regulations for plain and standardized packaging. Plain packaging, a key measure to protect youth and curb the package as a means of promotion, has already been adopted by eight countries.

Increasing tobacco taxes is the most effective strategy to reduce tobacco use, especially among youth who have less disposable income. They're more price sensitive. That tobacco taxes decrease consumption is recognized by the World Bank, the World Health Organization, a vast number of studies in Canada and worldwide, provincial and territorial governments across Canada, and successive federal governments. Tobacco tax increases are a win-win, benefiting both public health and public revenue. The budget projects increased revenue of $375 million in this fiscal year alone as a result of the tobacco tax changes.

Inflation indexing of the tobacco tax was initiated in the 2014 federal budget, with indexing to occur every five years. The first inflation adjustment was to have occurred in 2019. Indexation ensures that tobacco tax rates are in effect kept the same on an after-inflation basis. In its pre-budget submission, Imperial Tobacco Canada recommended annual indexation instead of every five years as part of its recommendations to this committee.

Federal tobacco taxes are better than provincial tobacco taxes from a contraband perspective, because they apply on reserves. There's no difference between on-reserve and off-reserve tax rates. The level of contraband on which federal tobacco taxes are not paid is far lower than the contraband level on which provincial tobacco taxes are not paid.

I would invite committee members to turn to the background material that was circulated to you. The first graph shows comparative provincial and territorial tobacco tax rates. We see that Ontario and Quebec have the lowest tax rates in Canada but the highest contraband. That's counterintuitive to what we hear from the tobacco industry. They say higher tobacco taxes increase contraband. We see that in western Canada they have far higher rates of tobacco taxes but much lower levels of contraband.

Why is contraband higher in Ontario and Quebec? It's proximity to the illegal factories and sources of supply, but we can see that higher tobacco taxes have been sustained in the west and the Atlantic.

The next graph shows the trend in federal and provincial tobacco tax revenue. We see that even with reduced smoking rates, tobacco tax revenue continues to increase despite the lower smoking prevalence. In fiscal year 2017, the amount of $8.4 billion was collected, with even more of an increase if GST, HST, and PST on tobacco products were factored in.

The next graph shows the long-term trend in smoking prevalence in Canada. In 1965 it was 50% for Canadians aged 15 plus. In 2016 that was down to 17%. Over recent years we've seen a continuing decline. That's very positive, but it's also relevant when we see that tobacco tax revenue continues to increase. So tobacco taxes do benefit public revenue.

The next graph shows trends among teenagers, the 15- to 19-year-olds. We see a continuing decline in smoking prevalence among youth. That's very good. Tobacco taxes and other measures have contributed to that, but we want to keep driving this down further. The recently announced measures will help do that.

We thank the federal government for the new tobacco control measures that have been brought forward, and we appreciate the support from all parties. We look forward to continuing progress.

Thank you.

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

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay certainly seems to be well informed on this issue and may have personal knowledge of issues or concerns. What I would suggest to him is that Canada already has that regime. We have the Competition Bureau and the Competition Act, which regulate misleading advertising. This was actually my area of specialty when I was a lawyer. I reviewed advertising claims, from online to television. If advertising has any health-related aspect, there needs to be substantiation behind it. There needs to be science. Certain health claims are also regulated and have to be pre-screened by Advertising Standards Canada before they go on television.

If any Canadians have concerns about a claim being made that they think is misleading and is enticing people to make a purchase or maybe even try something out, they can bring that issue to the Competition Bureau. We have that regime in place.

What Bill S-5 would allow is a much more orderly process when it comes to packaging and to the promotion of the liquids involved in an emerging vaping industry. As I said, we need public health education and regulation. We can also recognize that these products are less harmful than tobacco products, but Canadians need to know that they might be 99% less harmful, but there are potential risks involved.

I think the public information and regulation in the bill is fair. I would have liked a separate bill, because this is a new and emerging device, but at the very least, Canadians can be assured that there would be more effective regulation as a result of Bill S-5.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a Friday afternoon, as we are winding down a week, the humour of the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells did not bristle; it was welcomed. I was a very proud toothbrush lawyer, toothpaste lawyer, and a whole bunch of things when I was with P&G.

The best thing we can do is to give the public information and education about the products they use. The Conservatives generally agree that the individual, particularly once they are an adult, can make choices and can make choices responsibly, but they have to do this by having the proper information.

When it comes to the issue of vaping, having certain ingredients listed, certain claims about any positive health benefit or any positive benefit of stopping smoking, those claims need to be substantiated by science and reviewed if they are a health type of claim.

When it comes to tobacco, the health and science is clear, and has been clear for two generations now. Bill S-5's thrust is the plain packaging. While there are a number of other issues in there, which we have all spoken about today, the evidence is clear. For countries that have adopted plain packaging, it has had an added impact.

Under the Conservative government, Canadians hit an all-time low in overall levels of smoking in Canada, but the bill has elements in it that can get that number even lower. People who choose to smoke, whether regularly or occasionally, have to be informed so they know the choices and they can make informed decisions on their own.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill S-5, a bill first introduced in the Senate.

I am good friends with my friend from Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook. My wife's family lives in Fall River.

I did note, with interest, one of his responses, in which he said that the government was an evidence-based government and that it made decisions based on evidence. It appears that does not apply to the cannabis bill. Its rush to legalize, to keep the Prime Minister's very ill-conceived promise, has been contrary to evidence provided by the Canadian Medical Association, pediatricians, and so forth.

My speech will be based entirely on evidence. That needs to be brought here. I would also like to speak for a moment on how members of Parliament do their jobs, both in their constituency and in Ottawa. We do not talk about it enough. We know that Ottawa is full of government relations representatives, lobbyists, consultants, communications people, and we hear from people and groups on bills and legislation, which is important. We have to be informed. In many cases, we will call them to committee as well to give expert evidence and testimony.

I want to thank a constituent in my riding who brought very thoughtful and informed advocacy to me on Bill S-5. His name is Craig Farrow. He is a store owner in Bowmanville, and has been an owner of a store that sells vaping products. That is one of the elements contained in Bill S-5. Craig met with me and gave a very detailed presentation on how, when it came to smoking cessation, vaping products had helped up to a million Canadians leave smoking. In fact, in Craig's own experience of guiding and informing people in Bowmanville, he told me that in the five years his store had been open, he had helped 4,000 people transition from smoking to that e-cigarette or that vaping product.

Why this is important is that studies have shown, including a number of them in the United Kingdom, that vaping, and the nicotine included in the vaping fumes, is 95% less harmful than the tobacco delivery of nicotine. When we talk about the bill, we have to recognize there are some smoking cessation benefits to some of the products that will be regulated under Bill S-5. I want to thank Craig Farrow and store owners like him across the country who met with MPs, whether in Ottawa or in their ridings, and made the case that they should not be included.

The challenge is that they are included in Bill S-5. What I would have preferred to see was a separate bill on measures to prevent smoking, because I think we all support that. I would have preferred the marijuana and cannabis discussion to be a little more fulsome in Ottawa. Then, vaping, which is totally different, but worthy of regulation and attention, should have been treated differently. However, they are not.

I will speak about why I and my Conservative colleagues support Bill S-5. We are disappointed the government has tried to bring a lot of things in with it. It is a bill that amends the Tobacco Act, the Non-Smokers Health Act, and consequential amendments. It is kind of another example of a Liberal-promoted omnibus bill.

There are good elements in the bill that evidence has shown has led people to stop smoking. We have known for decades now that smoking can have numerous health impacts, including cancer. That is why governments, since 1980s, have tried to make measures to curb smoking, particularly with young people.

Bill S-5 has, as its centerpiece, the plain packaging issue, when it comes to tobacco sales, promotion, and advertising. Plain packaging measures have shown a marked increase, in jurisdictions that have adopted it, to prevent people from smoking.

We can look at the jurisdictions, which I looked did, of Australia, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand, our closest allies, I am well known for advocating working even closer with those allies under a program called CANZUK. Those countries have already implemented plain packaging and have had tremendous results.

The post-implementation review in Australia of its plain packaging legislation has estimated already, within the span of 18 months to two years, that almost 110,000 people have stopped smoking as a result that legislative measure.

In the United Kingdom, David Cameron's Conservative government brought forward similar legislation. It is estimated that this plain packaging move will take 300,000 people away from smoking, reducing the health impacts, the cost to society, and the toll on families.

In New Zealand, John Key's government also brought in similar legislation.

Therefore, with this part of Bill S-5, we are very in line with what our closest friends and allies have done. Unlike the Liberals who talk about evidence-based decision-making, I am trying to review the benefits that some of our friends have already had. We can review their evidence, especially the post-implementation review in Australia, to show this will have a benefit. Even though there are a lot of things in Bill S-5, plain packaging is the centrepiece.

I would also like to mention why the Conservatives support Bill S-5, despite its omnibus nature.

Since the government of Brian Mulroney in 1988, and the tobacco products act it brought in with Bill C-51 at the time, there has been a non-partisan approach to smoking cessation legislation in the House. I am glad, despite some of the issues and despite the Liberals voting down our worthwhile amendments at committee, that we are still advocating and supporting them on this. We see the benefit, much like governments since 1988 saw with the legislation from the Brian Mulroney Progressive Conservative government. Subsequent changes were made by Liberal governments. Now we are trying to bring that same non-partisan approach to a public health issue on how we can get more young people to stop smoking or not get into it at all.

I would also like to thank the great advocacy work of physicians of the Heart and Stroke Foundation and a number of other great groups that have been at the forefront of some of these smoking cessation pieces of legislation. As I said at the outset of my remarks, we are trying to be non-partisan here, but I am very partisan. I would like to see the same approach in listening to physicians, health care professionals, and families in many cases to stop the rush with respect to some of the measures on the Prime Minister's pledge on marijuana. I guess I can hold out hope that showing all-party support on a bill like this perhaps will have the Liberals revisit their approach to public health policy.

The final part in my speech goes back Craig Farrow, store keepers, and e-cigarette or vaping shop owners who have concerns about Bill S-5. There needs to be regulation in that space as well.

Before coming to Parliament, I was a lawyer for Procter & Gamble. At times, I was a toothbrush lawyer. In fact, some of its electric toothbrushes were medical devices, so they were already regulated. Therefore, the vaporizers that heat up the liquid and produce the vape are medical devices. It is a class II medical device. To be eligible for sale in Canada, a part of that industry are already being regulated. They need a device licence and an establishment licence for the facility that creates the vaporizing product. Why? Because these items Canadians use on their body or in their body. Therefore, we have to have faith that they are properly regulated, that they are safe and fit for use. That is why there is already regulation. I would like to see the same regulation applied to the sale, promotion, and labelling of products involved in vaping.

Certainly, when I met with Craig and a lot of the owners, they already do not list products with candy-sounding names and things like that. However, it is important for us to have regulation in place to ensure that it is consistent and to ensure there is not an outlier that would allow children to be enticed into it. While, studies show that it is better for people and can be an aid in getting people off smoking tobacco, there are health impacts, and people deserve to know that. It is also a $27 billion industry globally now, and it is growing. Therefore, it is appropriate for the Government of Canada to regulate it.

As I said at the outset, I would have preferred separate legislation as opposed to an omnibus-type bill approach here, but nonetheless the smoking cessation measures within the bill are positive.

I think the vaping industry will also take positives from the bill. Vaporizing in general will be used already by cannabis manufacturers. They are already getting their device licences approved for the delivery of a vaporized cannabis once the Prime Minister's cannabis regime is in place. What the vaping stores can look to is that in the future not just ingredients like nicotine can be part of devices. There is the potential, with proper regulation, for some types of over-the-counter or low level health benefit products to be part of delivery by vaporizer. If we bring regulation certainty to this area of public health, it will actually help Craig and his industry in the future.

It has been my pleasure to speak for a few minutes on this and to once again show that responsible shop owners and industry associations, by bringing their issues forward, are helping make public debate better. They are helping us improve legislation. They are also improving our overall awareness of the risks, but also the positives, when it comes to smoking cessation, of new products like e-cigarettes and those sorts of things.

Parliament is meant to talk about the good and about the bad. In areas where we can get young people off smoking, it is important to have all-party support like we have had with Bill S-5.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am always very happy to stand in the House to represent the people of my riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook. I describe the riding as a half-circle around the two big cities of Halifax and Dartmouth.

The riding has a very large population of veterans and military members. I am extremely proud to represent those individuals. Those veterans and military members make up 23% of the population, which is the highest in Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia has the highest number of veterans and military members per capita in the country. Members can well understand why I am very proud to represent those individuals.

There is also a very large number of seniors in the riding. When I visit the various seniors groups, the work they do is quite impressive. Not only do they do all kinds of great things when it comes to volunteering, but they also have all kinds of events and activities taking place daily in their communities to support seniors. That is important.

There are fishing communities, like Eastern Passage. There are urban and rural communities. There is a good mix in my riding. I always want to underline those key issues and concerns.

I am pleased to speak to Bill S-5, a very important bill that came through the Senate. The bill would amend the Tobacco Act and the Non-smokers’ Health Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

It is important to note that we have done some really good work on prevention when it comes to tobacco. In the last number of years, we have seen a decrease in the numbers of smokers in Canada, from 22% to 13%. That is because of the various strategies we have used, including the markings and packaging, which I will talk about as well. However, we need to go further.

When we start to talk about vaping products, I have to be honest I do not have a lot of experience in this area. I have asked myself questions on many occasions, when driving or walking down the street and I see people using these vaping products. I have asked myself if these products include nicotine or tobacco. Sometimes I smell an odour like when someone is smoking a pipe. This allowed me to a little research to learn more about this product.

This bill focuses on two major areas. The first is a new framework for unregulated products. As I have said, the product is out there, but there are no regulation on it. We need to put some regulations on that.

The other aspect of the bill that I want to speak to is the plain packaging, because that is crucial. I believe we are heading in the right direction. When I hear “plain packaging”, I think about branding. So many things in the country and in the world if branded and marketed the right way will influence people to purchase it or try it.

Branding is so important. I think about James Curleigh who spoke last week about Levi's and the main strategies used to brand a product and make people want to purchase and use that product. That is why plain packaging is crucial. We have to take away the influence branding has. That is extremely important.

I believe we are the 10th country looking at changing branding and moving to plain packaging.

When we say “plain packaging”, the colour is gone, which is good. It is not as attractive. Perhaps the shape has changed and that may stop people from purchasing and using the product. It is not as flashy, but we can still put the necessary warnings on the packaging to show the other products it may contain.

The consultation that took place on the bill allowed 58,000 Canadians to speak about packaging, how they felt about plain packaging, and if they believed this was what we should be doing. A large majority of people supported it. I am extremely happy about that. I just shared with the members what branding and marketing could do. Therefore, if we take that away, we reverse the table on it, and we then head in the right direction. However, the consultation was crucial.

The next step is to put a committee together to work on setting the rules and regulations. Once that is set, then we will go back out and consult again. It is important to ensure we are in partnership as we move forward on this important bill.

I will now touch on vaping products. Again, my experience is limited in this area, but vaping has been going on for eight or nine years. As members know, once a new product comes online and the industry gets involved, it will continue to find ways to make the product more attractive, different, and we will see all kinds of versions out there.

This is where we need to ensure we are regulating, and there are two areas we will look at to to this. The product could fall under the Food and Drugs Act, which would mean for therapeutic use only. If it does not meet the therapeutic criteria, it would automatically fall under the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act. Therefore, we have two areas where it could be regulated.

The objective here is to ensure that young people do not have access to this product. We will set the limit at 18 years. The other reason we want to act on this vaping product is that adults already use e-cigarettes. I agree that information is still unclear and we do not have all the scientific evidence, but some facts clearly show that this product is much less harmful than cigarettes themselves. As a result, this strategy to establish regulations may allow people who smoke to use this product, and then to eliminate this type of product entirely. This is another strategy.

The other thing we need to really look at is the whole issue of public health. We know how much money we spend on health. Provincial governments and the federal government spend a lot of money on health. There are waiting lists for our hospitals. This is very important. If this can help reduce the pressure on our public health system, we should consider it as another success.

Let us look at some of the key provisions in the bill. The first, as I mentioned, is the age limit of 18 years or older, which is an important factor.

The second one is what we call machine dispensers. We have come a long way with machine dispensers. I do not remember, but some people who are older than I am have told me that they existed for beer at one time, way back when. We could get beer the same way we get pop. That was available. Then we had them for cigarettes, of course, but we will make sure that they are not permitted for vaping products as well. We are starting in a much further area or space than we did with other products that were also very damaging.

Other provisions have to do with mailing and delivery if people order online. We know that ordering online is a big thing now. I know my kids order a lot of things online. It has become another method for people to purchase products without having to wander around in malls and spend their day in different shops.

That is one way of purchasing a product, but when products are sent and delivered, it will be crucial to ensure that the person who is receiving the product at the delivery point is older than 18 years. Therefore, when people are purchasing, they may have to have a Visa in their name. I do not have all of the specifics, but when it is being delivered to the homes of people, we must make sure that the person who is receiving the product is over 18 years old. That is crucial.

Another restriction is with respect to promotion. When it is being promoted, companies would be able to use some promotion strategies because the risk is less. However, there are some limitations in that area as well that are crucial.

Another area that is also important is prohibiting flavours that are attractive to kids, such as candy flavours, and I would like to share something that speaks to that. While we do not propose to limit the flavouring ingredients that may be added, we do not want to see those flavours identified or promoted as things that are appealing to kids. It will not be permissible to offer e-juice, cotton candy, popcorn, candy cane, or other flavours that appeal to kids.

As we can see, those are some of the strategies that the industry could come forward with that could cause great problems.

With respect to the second category and the Consumer Product Safety Act, of course vaping products that do not have therapeutic claims would fall under this category and all of the regulations that come with it for tobacco, etc. It will also require the industry, if there are any malfunctions, fires, or explosions associated with the product itself, to report them to Health Canada so that Health Canada can also recall the product.

As members can see, we are definitely heading in the right direction. This is much better than what was out there, because there were no controls. These regulations will help us.

In conclusion, together these measures will help protect the health and safety of all Canadians, including the people who choose to use vaping products.

Bill S-5 is a critical piece of our government's tobacco control agenda and will help address one of the most challenging and enduring public health problems. Bill S-5 strikes a balance between the harms of vapour products that may entice youth and others to develop a narcotic addiction and the potential public health benefits that could arise from reducing tobacco-related deaths and diseases.

I urge all colleagues in this House to support the bill at second reading and to move it quickly to committee.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I spent a couple of decades working closely with high schools in my region, so I know how important it is to support prevention programs in our schools. In my riding, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, an organization called Jeunes en santé is doing amazing work in youth health promotion. It is helping schools and organizations teach healthy life habits. Unfortunately, funding for organizations like Jeunes en santé tends to be precarious. We have to support organizations that work on the front lines.

My colleague mentioned stakeholders. Stakeholders played a major role in drafting Bill S-5, which will soon become law; they indicated what kind of amendments were needed. They were the ones who insisted that social media advertising targeting young people should be prohibited. The federal government must ensure that our laws protect people who are targeted and who are more likely to start using tobacco. We have to listen to front-line stakeholders. In my speech, I mentioned organizations such as the Coalition québécoise pour le contrôle du tabac, Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada, the Canadian Medical Association, and the Canadian Public Health Association. Every one of those organizations is prepared to show us the way and tell us what needs to be done.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, to conclude my speech I will recap what I said before question period.

In a bill like Bill S-5, it is important to strike a balance between protecting non-smokers and helping smokers to quit smoking. It is important to develop prevention tools and invest in preventing people from smoking in the first place. If a person starts smoking, then one day they will want to quit, and we know how hard that can be. We have to invest in prevention to ensure that we have everything we need to make people aware of the risks of using tobacco.

I also mentioned the importance of targeting groups that are more likely to smoke. Again, 40% of first nations people smoke, as do 37% of people who are divorced or separated. Young people are also a target group. Often people start smoking when they are teenagers. I would add that troubled youth are particularly targeted. What is more, people with mental health issues, whether it be a minor depression or a more serious problem, represent 20% of the Canadian public who will be affected at some point, and some statistics point to an even higher rate.

Therefore, it is important to focus on these groups and to help the organizations that support these people in particular. We should help organizations such as Satellite, in Saint-Hyacinthe, and Horizon Soleil, in Acton Vale, which work on prevention with elementary school children, their parents, and teachers so that they know how to handle a situation where they might start consuming. Earlier, I spoke about Maison l'Alcôve, a well-regarded organization that does excellent work when it comes to treating all addictions. It treats its clients in the enchanting surroundings of an old monastery, which is ideal for treating addictions.

I am also thinking of several organizations that are affected. I was the long-time director of a community housing organization, Auberge du coeur Le Baluchon. We provided housing for troubled youth, and most of them were users and also smokers. They were only allowed to smoke outside the house, and so the balcony became their meeting place. This organization's mission is not to help prevent smoking, but that is still a concern.

I am also thinking of all the mental health organizations. I worked for the Contact Richelieu-Yamaska crisis centre, where most of the people with mental health issues were also smokers. Then there is MADH, Maison alternative de développement humain, and Centre psychosocial Richelieu-Yamaska, which do the same kind of work.

As the federal government we are responsible for providing the funding to promote healthy living to Canadians. Whether we are talking about nutrition or physical exercise, a healthy lifestyle can help prevent people from smoking, which is the purpose of Bill S-5.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Tobacco Act and the Non-smokers’ Health Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

Tobacco and Vaping Products Act

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, the NDP does not think this bill is perfect, but we are going to support it at third reading. It is important to remember that the purpose of this bill is to create a new legislative framework for regulating vaping products and to implement plain and standardized packaging. We have long called for effective, concrete anti-tobacco measures to discourage young people from starting to smoke. The NDP is clearly a leader on this front. We have long called for plain packaging and a regulatory framework for vaping products.

In 2009, the former health critic, the member for Winnipeg North, introduced a bill to close loopholes in the Tobacco Act by tightening requirements for the labelling, packaging, and sale of flavoured tobacco products. In the last election campaign, we promised to introduce anti-smoking measures, increase funding for anti-smoking strategies, implement plain packaging, and ban all flavoured tobaccos. We also talked about the need to initiate a federal review to strengthen Canada's tobacco control legislation and the associated strategy, which expires in 2018.

It is clear that our demands were heard because it is now illegal to use flavourings and additives in tobacco products. It is important to reiterate that smoking is the leading cause of disease and premature death in Canada. The annual health care cost per smoker in Canada is over $3,000, which adds up to $17 billion a year. If passed, this bill could save money by reducing smoking rates in Canada, savings that would benefit the provinces and territories. There is no doubt that tobacco causes serious illnesses and a number of problems that can lead to death. One Canadian dies from a tobacco-related illness every 14 minutes. That is unacceptable. This is why we are supporting this bill and urging the other parties to do the same, in spite of everything.

Anti-smoking groups rightly point out that the longer we wait to pass a bill like this one, the more people will start to smoke and the more people will die from the consequences of tobacco use. Although there are regulations in place, it is difficult to restrict access to e-cigarettes. There is no evidence as of yet indicating that e-cigarettes encourage young people and non-smokers to start consuming nicotine. However, we still lack information on these and other vaping products, since they are new to the market. These products and their different flavours may seem enticing, especially to young people. If this bill is passed, the ban on tobacco sales to persons under the age of 18 will also be extended to vaping products, and it will also be illegal to promote vaping products. In addition, it will be illegal to use tobacco brands or information-based advertising to market vaping products to young people. Labels on these products must carry warnings regarding their nicotine content and the health problems they can cause. These measures are less restrictive than those applied to tobacco, since these products are considered less harmful for now.

Of course, some amendments could have been proposed. One of the downsides to this bill is the fact that vaping product manufacturers will be able to promote their products everywhere, which is bound to attract young teens. When bringing in regulations at the federal level, it is always important to consider provincial and territorial regulations. We have to bear that in mind every time we consider a federal bill.

Vaping products may help reduce tobacco consumption, but it is important to remember that using them does not break the smoking habit. Maison Alcôve, a well-known addiction treatment centre in Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, made it clear that the only way a smoker will stop smoking is by breaking those habits, those daily rituals. Smoking an e-cigarette is still smoking. Using vaping products to reduce tobacco consumption has limitations we need to consider.

If this bill passes, manufacturers would be required to submit to Health Canada information on sales and the ingredients in the vaping products, to ensure follow-up.

The 2015 report on vaping released by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health, which did an excellent job, made 14 recommendations, including one to create a legislative framework for vaping products. This bill follows up on these recommendations.

This bill also contains other provisions. Indeed, the Non-smokers' Health Act, which seeks to protect those in federally regulated workplaces, will be amended to ensure that vaping products are subject to the same prohibitions as tobacco products.

Bill S-5 harmonizes compliance and enforcement authorities with those found in other modern statutes, including the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act. These authorities would apply to both vaping and tobacco products. This would allow inspectors to use telewarrants and enter private property in carrying out an inspection, while accompanied by any person qualified to conduct the inspection. They could also require manufacturers to keep records, and stop or move any means of transportation for the purpose of inspection.

I want to emphasize the fact that disadvantaged and marginalized populations are the easiest targets and, unfortunately, they tend to consume more tobacco than the general population. They are more likely to suffer from tobacco-related illnesses. For example, 40% of first nations people smoke, and 37% of people who are divorced or separated smoke. We can no longer allow these groups to be targeted. The end goal is to reduce the gap in health status between general and disadvantaged populations caused by serious tobacco-related diseases.

Youth are also affected by this. We know that young people usually start smoking during adolescence. They are an easy target because they are easily influenced and find the packaging appealing. This bill will make it possible to minimize tobacco use and nicotine addiction among young people. As a result, it will also reduce the percentage of smokers.

Passing this bill would be a step forward in reducing tobacco use and would improve the health of Canadians. We really need regulations and measures like the ones set out in Bill S-5 to successfully reduce tobacco use. However, we also need to make young people aware that they can choose not to use tobacco. We need to get them to think about what they are taking into their bodies and make sure that they know how to say no.

Parents also need to be educated about this, so that they stop trivializing smoking and realize that smoking is dangerous. An organization in my riding called Satellite and one in Acton Vale called Horizon Soleil are tyring to educate younger kids about these issues beginning in elementary school. Education will have a stronger impact and must go hand in hand with passing Bill S-5 in order to effectively reduce the number of smokers in Canada.

I have discussed this bill with some of the stakeholder organizations in my riding, including the ones I just mentioned, Satellite, Horizon Soleil in Acton Vale, and Maison l'Alcôve, which start educating children in elementary school, as well as their teachers and parents, about the harmful effects of using tobacco and the importance of not using it in the teen years, and especially not in elementary school.

We really need to have a strict law, because young people are drawn to these products, with their colourful packaging and different flavours. We need to make sure that they never start smoking. We all know people in our lives who want to stop using tobacco. We know how hard it is. We need to focus on prevention so that they do not start using tobacco.

As I was saying in my speech, I have spoken with stakeholders and the director of Maison l'Alcôve, a very reputable addiction prevention centre in my riding. Every day they encounter people who are trying to quit smoking. They were saying how hard it is to address this problem because that involves breaking daily habits.

It is important to acknowledge the work of national organizations in support of our legislative amendments to this bill. These organizations, including many medical and anti-smoking organizations, asked us to go even further.

Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada, the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Public Health Association, and the Association pour la santé publique du Québec, are some of the organizations that come to mind. Since I am from Quebec, I would point out the Coalition québécoise pour le contrôle du tabac, which does exemplary work on smoking prevention and awareness.

As I was saying earlier in my speech, we have to ensure that people do not ever start smoking. Of course we can work on helping them quit smoking, but I think that at the federal level our main job is to raise awareness. We have to do enough on raising awareness to ensure that smoking for the first time triggers an alarm in a person's mind and prevents them from starting in the first place. It is important. These organizations help us understand the balance between the need to protect non-smokers and the need to provide smokers with help to quit smoking.

For a long time, about a decade, the NDP put pressure on the Conservative government. It is now pressuring the Liberal government with bills. My colleague from Vancouver Kingsway has done excellent work with the Standing Committee on Health and strives to raise the government's awareness at every meeting. My colleague also works with all the organizations I named. As parliamentarians, it is important to listen to stakeholders. As critic, I am in touch with people on the front lines. Every day, they see the effects of decisions we make here. It is so important to listen to those stakeholders and their recommendations. They are eagerly awaiting this bill. We have to listen to them. These people work with tobacco users and educate people so they do not start smoking. That is what they do every day, and they say this bill is important. That is why it is so important for us to pass it.

The NDP supports this bill. We know it is not perfect and needs improvement, but it is a first step. We will keep pressing the government to do more. We will keep asking for more funding for prevention.

I worked in the health sector for decades, and spent some time working in prevention. In health care, 95% of funds are allocated to curative care. A lot of money is allocated to treatment, and the remaining 5% is allocated to prevention. These groups are telling us to invest more in prevention.

I have four children. With my youngest, I was introduced to energy cubes. Pierre Lavoie teaches us that we would have far fewer people in the hospital if we took care of our health every day, if we ate properly and did physical exercise. Smoking prevention is one of the healthy living habits that we need to instill in kids from a young age.

I think that our role at the federal level is to allocate enough funds to promote prevention and healthy living. Anti-smoking measures are part of these healthy living habits that we must instill in children from a young age. At the federal level, we must allocate enough funds to ensure that discussions on health also address prevention, the importance of taking action before problems arise.

What often happens is that we react to problems, but in supporting this bill, I think we are taking an important step in combatting tobacco use.

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

Madam Speaker, we did not spend a lot of time talking about contraband marijuana during the Bill S-5 discussion. We talked mainly about the huge problem that we have today with contraband cigarettes.

It is no secret that many of the contraband cigarettes are produced at reserves across the country. It is an enforcement issue, because the reserves have the right to produce cigarettes; the problem is that other people are coming to the reserve and purchasing them. From an enforcement point of view, one has to either arrest everyone as they come out of the smoke shop or not do anything. If there has not been a successful solution on contraband cigarettes, then I doubt that we are going to see any successful solution elsewhere.

Contraband marijuana will be a significant problem. When we were doing the cannabis legislation, indigenous people testified that they will want the right to produce and distribute marijuana, so we may run into the same situation there. If there are no good solutions and none are found on smoking, then I do not think we are going to be successful in the marijuana area either.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today on Bill S-5 regarding plain packaging and vaping.

Canada has come a long way in terms of smoking cessation. Over the last number of years, half a century or so, the smoking rate has been reduced from about 50% to 13%, and the Conservative Party has been a great part of that. During the time we were in government, we definitely promoted many plans and programs that promoted the cessation of smoking. In fact, at one point, we focused specifically on youth, because there was a concern that youth smoking rates were rising again. We were able to reduce those rates from 33% to less than 20%. I think we need to continue to march along and figure out how to reduce smoking among young people and, of course, all Canadians.

One of the things I find a little hypocritical about the government is that in the budget, the Liberals introduced $80 million to stop people from smoking but $800 million to get them to start smoking marijuana. I think that is a total misalignment, in terms of health outcomes, that we would want to look at.

In terms of studying the bill, it was actually quite an education for me. We got to see all kinds of little products. There is a lot of new technology that has been developed. I did not bring any of it today, of course, because we do not allow props, but to let members know, there is a myriad of new technologies coming forward.

There is something called the HeatSticks, which are little tobacco sticks that are not combusted. The sticks are put in a device that heats them so that there are fewer harmful products. It is for harm reduction, in terms of health.

We learned about vaping and vaping devices. There are many different kinds of devices. Some have evolved over time. There was a concern at one point about batteries exploding in certain devices.

We need to make sure that something is done with the vaping industry, because today the vaping industry is totally unregulated. In fact, it is illegal. We have a lot of stores that have sprung up all over the place, but there is no governance or oversight to prevent them from selling these devices to young people or from selling marijuana at the same time. Definitely we need to see this industry regulated, so I am happy to see that regulations would be brought in with Bill S-5.

Quite a number of studies were presented to us by the Canadian Cancer Society. It is one of many health organizations that support this proposed legislation. I believe that 362 health organizations have come forward in support of this proposed legislation.

Of the 150 studies that have been done, there are eight countries that have been looking to implement plain packaging, and they have seen a reduction in the number of people smoking.

In terms of trying to make the bill better, we brought a whole bunch of amendments, but not a single one was accepted by the government. Therefore, I will spend a little time telling members about the amendments we tried to bring so they understand why I am disappointed that they were not received well.

First, if we look to Europe and the U.K., there is an additive called diacetyl, which is used for flavour. It gives a buttery flavour. It was found in the popcorn industry to cause something they dubbed “popcorn lung”. It is a very serious respiratory issue. This additive has been banned. It is prohibited in both the U.K. and Europe, and we felt that we should learn from their experience. They have been looking into the vaping side of things for 10 years now. We brought an amendment to prohibit that additive here, which, of course, was rejected. I cannot imagine for what reason.

Another issue we brought forward was something we heard from those in the tobacco industry. The tobacco industry is obviously going to eventually go out of business as people stop smoking, and there will be some job losses. However, more importantly, the plain packaging that was recommended as the solution is the old sleeve packaging we used to have. Those machines that manufactured that old packaging were all sold, in some cases to the people who are providing the contraband today. In terms of ordering new equipment, that equipment is obsolete.

There is not a good enough timeline in the proposed legislation, which calls for it to go into effect right away. There is not enough time for these people to purchase new equipment and get it established to comply with the proposed regulations.

For that reason, we brought an amendment that would extend the time of implementation by 12 months in order to allow time for businesses to come onside and comply with the legislation. That, of course, was also not accepted.

We also were interested in making sure that people know about the harm reduction information that is available. There have been studies within the tobacco industry on the new technologies that the industry is bringing forward. In the U.K. there was a study on vaping that showed there was a 95% reduction in harm. It is important for people who are smokers to be able to get hold of the information that there is less harm in some of these products and that they can be an avenue for them to stop smoking, but the bill would not allow anybody except Health Canada or the Minister of Health to provide harm reduction information. We thought that doctors and folks involved in smoking cessation clinics should be able to pass on this information, so we brought amendments on that as well, which were, of course, rejected.

Another thing we wanted to address was the issue of contraband. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health indicated that it was not a problem in Australia, but we should point out that Australia does not grow tobacco. It has to import all of it. In Canada, we grow tobacco in quite a number of places, and the contraband problem that we have currently is quite severe. Thirty or forty per cent is the estimate across the country, and in some places like Ontario, 60% of the cigarettes are contraband. Contraband brings along with it organized crime and activities that we do not want. We are worried that implementing plain packaging would make it easier for people to produce contraband cigarettes, so we were looking at ways and technologies that could be used to mark the cigarettes or mark the cases to make sure that people are not able to counterfeit them.

Counterfeiters are very good at what they do, and we always have to keep ahead of the technology. We heard witnesses tell us that producers of contraband are even able to get hold of the CRA stamps that are put on government packages, or to copy them in some way. That was another amendment that we would have liked to see to make sure that those contraband protection technologies were implemented, but of course that was also not accepted.

In looking at all the different technologies, we wanted to make sure that the bill covered everything. Marijuana and marijuana-consuming devices were not really covered in the marijuana legislation, and in this legislation we did not cover marijuana at all, so there is a gap there. We should have made it much clearer as to whether we want people to vape marijuana. To my mind, that is still an outstanding question.

Overall, the bill itself had a lot to it. Many people came before us. The convenience store owners were really concerned. Today they do not participate in the vaping industry and they want a chance to participate, but they feel they may not be able to do that because of the way they are regulated. They have a good record in terms of making sure that young people are not buying cigarettes, so they already have a good protocol in place for doing that, whereas the existing vaping stores do not have that. We certainly want to make sure that the convenience store owners have the opportunity to participate and take advantage of all of this.

Some of the most interesting testimony that we heard was about how people are using vaping products. I mentioned that people are using them to get off smoking, but some other interesting ideas were also brought forward. I heard people talk about how those who are morbidly obese or diabetic and have cravings for sugar are actually licking cherry-flavoured or pie-flavoured vaping products to control their cravings for sugar and lose weight. That was fairly interesting as well.

When I look into the bill and the amendments that we brought, I feel that overall this bill would result in reduced smoking rates in Canada. I think it would do that. Over a 10-year period, Australia saw a 3% reduction in the smoking rate. It is not a huge thing and probably not the only thing, but it is important.

One of the things that concerns me about with vaping was testimony that 30% of young people have tried vaping, and of the 30% who tried vaping, 50% are likely to start smoking. That is why it is so critical in this legislation to make sure that we are not advertising vaping to children under 18 and that we have good controls in place to make sure that children under 18 are not getting hold of vaping devices, because if they do, they are likely to start smoking, and then we are back to the problem that the Conservative government previously addressed in terms of reducing smoking by young people.

Although I am very disappointed that the excellent recommendations brought forward in amendments from the Conservative Party were not accepted, I feel that the bill overall will reduce harm to Canadians, and the vaping industry will be regulated. Therefore, we will be supporting this legislation.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Madam Speaker, I share the member's concern about the effects of tobacco use on the long-term health of our kids. That is why this bill is a very strong step forward. It would enable us to restrict access to it by young people. As I mentioned in my earlier remarks, the government is also making significant investments in research and treatment to ensure that we achieve this not only through regulation but through significant investments in those kids and their health.

We also recognize that there are many social determinants of tobacco use in our society, and we see those social determinants not only through Bill S-5 but through the entire government agenda. We are attempting to address social conditions such as unemployment, poverty, and lack of access to adequate services, which have in many communities resulted in increased tobacco use. Through regulation, we are ensuring that tobacco products are not appealing to young people, but at the same time, we are making other significant investments to change the circumstances in which the choice to use tobacco products is made by our kids.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Madam Speaker, my question focuses on youth and nicotine addiction. I have experienced, through my career working with youth, that they are often driven to nicotine addiction as a result of stress in school and in their lives, for example. I know that Bill S-5 addresses youth in particular with respect to the development of nicotine addiction. I am wondering if the member could expand on some of the things in this bill that would directly address nicotine addiction among youth.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Madam Speaker, in my remarks I said that we have already eliminated 95% of use. These regulations in Bill S-5 will enable us to prohibit the use of all tobacco products flavoured with menthol and cloves to address the concern she raises.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise today in support of Bill S-5, an act to amend the Tobacco Act and the Non-smokers’ Health Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Over many months, this legislation has been reviewed, amended, and enhanced. Canadians have weighed in on the proposed approach. Our stakeholders have shared their feedback, and both the Senate and the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health have conducted detailed reviews.

Today, I am pleased to rise in the House to share the results of all of that excellent work.

I will begin my remarks by reminding the House of why this important legislation is necessary. Next, I will describe how Bill S-5 has been strengthened to better protect youth, particularly since its review by the Standing Committee on Health. Finally, I will talk about what comes next.

Let us begin with why we need the legislation.

Canada has made outstanding progress over the past 30 years in reducing smoking rates. Our success speaks to the effectiveness of a strong regulatory approach. Nevertheless, tobacco-related illness continues to kill 45,000 Canadians every year. That is one person every 12 minutes. These statistics are alarming and unacceptable. That is why our government is working to reduce tobacco use in Canada, from 15% in 2015 to less than 5% by 2035.

As we work toward this goal, we need to recognize that tobacco use in Canada is changing. The tobacco market today is very different from what it was 30 years ago. Vaping products have changed the landscape and are becoming increasingly popular. From a public health perspective, this poses both challenges and opportunities.

Bill S-5 strikes the right balance between protecting Canadians and recognizing the potential benefits of vaping as an alternative to smoking. It also addresses an important need, by establishing a new legislative framework for the regulation of vaping products.

The bill is a key element of the government's new vision for addressing tobacco use, which includes taking action to ban menthol in tobacco products, implementing plain and standardized packaging requirements for tobacco products, and modernizing Canada's approach to driving down tobacco use.

Budget 2018 has made additional investments of $80.5 million to support this strategy. Between these new funds and our existing efforts, the Government of Canada plans to invest close to $300 million over the next five years with the goal of helping Canadians who have an addiction to tobacco, and protecting the health of young people and non-smokers.

We know that money alone is not the answer. We need to ensure that our approach is based on evidence. We need to listen to the experts and learn from what they tell us. That is why, since its introduction, Bill S-5 has been studied so extensively.

From the public consultation process to strong committee review, our government has heard from a wide range of stakeholders on the bill. This includes public health experts, industry representatives, consumer advocates, and academics, and their valuable feedback has informed the amendments to BillS-5.

In particular, I would like to express my very sincere thanks to the Standing Committee on Health and all of its members for its careful review of the bill. Most notably, the committee made amendments to prohibit lifestyle advertising for vaping products. This means that all lifestyle advertising, anything that associates a product with a way of life that includes glamour, recreation, and excitement will be prohibited. This will better protect our youth and non-tobacco users from being enticed into using vaping products, which could lead to the use of tobacco products and to the renormalization of smoking behaviours.

In addition, the bill was amended to provide regulatory authority to require information, such as health warnings, to be displayed on individual tobacco products, including on individual cigarettes. This amendment will align the approach for vaping and tobacco products. It may also be used to improve consumer awareness of the health hazards and health effects associated with the use of these products.

Protecting youth has been a key concern to stakeholders throughout the consultation process. It was a guiding principle as we drafted the legislation. In particular, many stakeholders have told us they worry about how vaping products could affect young people, and we share their concern.

Experts agree that vaping is harmful but less harmful than smoking. Although I have heard from Canadians who tell us that vaping has helped them quit smoking, their role in smoking cessation has yet to be substantiated. Thus we must be cautious. We must ensure that the availability and prevalence of vaping products do not lead young people and non-smokers to start smoking and to develop nicotine addictions.

That is why, upon royal assent, Bill S-5 will make vaping products legally available only to Canadians over the age of 18. This includes prohibiting vending machine sales and putting measures in place that require retailers to ensure that products purchased online are delivered only to adults.

The bill also includes measures that will ensure vaping products are not glamourized to appeal to young people through slick marketing promotion efforts. For example, there has been a great deal of discussion about how certain flavours could potentially make vaping products more appealing to young people.

We recognize that some of those smokers prefer flavoured vaping products, but we must also acknowledge that these flavours can draw youth to vaping, something we wish to avoid. For this reason, Bill S-5 would restrict the marketing and promotion of vaping product flavours that could appeal to youth, such as candy.

We have already taken significant action on this front by expanding the ban on menthol to cover 95% of all tobacco products. Bill S-5 would take further action by banning the use of menthol and clove in all tobacco products. These measures would help protect Canadians, particularly Canadian youth, from serious long-term health effects of nicotine and tobacco use.

Bill S-5 would also advance our goal of implementing plain and standardized packaging for tobacco products. Thanks to increasingly restrictive measures put in place by governments in Canada, the tobacco industry has few options left to advertise and promote its products to recruit new users. Packaging is one of the last remaining channels for the promotion of tobacco products to youth. That is why this is being addressed.

Research has shown that promotion through tobacco packages and products is particularly effective with adolescents and young adults. Colourful packaging that includes logos, textures, and brand images can have an enormous influence on young people at a time in their lives when they are establishing brand loyalty and smoking behaviour. Research has also shown that plain and standardized packaging reduces the appeal of tobacco products, particularly among youth.

This is why countries all around the world, including Australia, the United Kingdom, and more than 20 others, are either considering or have introduced requirements for plain and standardized packaging for tobacco products. I think we can all agree that tobacco companies should not be able to use packaging to make a harmful product appealing. Bill S-5 would put that principle into action.

As I have outlined today, the bill has been studied extensively. It has been shaped by expert opinion and reviewed by all our colleagues, both in the House and in the other place. As a result, Bill S-5 is before us today as well-researched and balanced legislation, and is part of a comprehensive new vision for addressing tobacco use.

Bill S-5 would meet the needs of a wide range of Canadians by addressing today's tobacco market. It would protect young Canadians from the risks of tobacco, while at the same time allowing adults to legally access vaping products as a less harmful alternative to smoking. It would also support our government's efforts to implement plain and standardized packaging of tobacco products.

If passed, Bill S-5 will position us to protect our youth, reduce tobacco use, and ultimately save lives. With Bill S-5 in place, Canada can once again be a world leader in tobacco control and preserve the health of Canadians for many years to come.

[Marie-Claude Bibeau, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

moved that Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Tobacco Act and the Non-smokers’ Health Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be concurred in.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Tobacco Act and the Non-smokers’ Health Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, today we will continue with debate on the NDP opposition motion.

Tomorrow, we will take up report stage and third reading debate of Bill S-5, the tobacco and vaping products act.

On Monday, we will commence report stage debate of Bill C-48, the oil tanker moratorium act.

Next Tuesday will be an allotted day.

On Wednesday, we will consider report stage and third reading of Bill C-21, an act to amend the Customs Act.

Last, discussions have taken place between the parties, and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, following Question Period on Wednesday, May 9, 2018, the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole in order to welcome the athletes of the 2018 PyeongChang Olympic and Paralympic Games; a) that the Speaker be permitted to preside over the Committee of the Whole from the Speaker's chair and make welcoming remarks on behalf of the House; b) that the names of the athletes present be deemed read and printed in the House of Commons Debates for that day; c) only authorized photographers be permitted to take photos during the proceedings of the Committee; and, d) when the proceedings of the Committee have concluded, the Committee shall rise.

[Eric Gagnon]

There are important issues with the stamp right now.

I have right here an illegal pack with a legal stamp on it. What's happening right now is that some of legal stamps are making their way into the hands of illegal traffickers, so consumers who are buying these products see a federal stamp on them and believe the products are legal.

That is the challenge when I talk about Bill S-5. The health minister has been going around Canada and telling everybody that plain packaging will not be an issue because we have a federal stamp that's going to differentiate between legal and illegal products. The issue we have today is that some of these illegal products already have a legal stamp. The challenge will be very significant moving forward. We already have a contraband problem right now. The issue is that we might be stuck with a counterfeit issue also.

That's one of the issues we have.

[Eric Gagnon]

First, let me provide you with some information about the size and scope of illegal tobacco and the links to organized crime.

Since I appeared before you in October, new data has been released on the illegal market in Ontario, which has jumped by more than 37%, a 66% increase in just three years. A recent report by Ernst & Young suggests that Ontario alone will lose up to $5 billion in tax revenues from tobacco by 2020.

We are also seeing alarming declines in tobacco tax revenue in provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan, suggesting there has been a significant increase in illegal activities in western Canada, where the illegal rate has been 12% to 15%, depending on the province. Meanwhile, rates in Atlantic Canada have been consistent, between 15% and 20%. The only province seeing a significant decline is Quebec, where aggressive law enforcement actions have seen rates drop from over 40% to less than 15%.

We estimate that the national illegal tobacco rate to be 20% to 25%, or around seven billion cigarettes, the equivalent of 35 million cartons. From there, you can do the math. If they're sold for $40 each, which is not uncommon, that's over $1.4 billion. We're talking about big money. In fact, the Sûreté du Québec recently said that the importation of illegal tobacco is eight times more lucrative than cocaine, which is why it is so attractive to organized crime groups. According to the RCMP, there are more than 175 organized crime groups involved in illegal tobacco in Canada. There are also at least 50 illegal cigarette factories in Canada and more than 300 smoke shacks selling tobacco outside existing legal, regulatory, and tax frameworks.

As Kevin mentioned, in March 2016, police forces in Ontario, Quebec, the U.S., and around the world were involved in the largest illegal tobacco bust in Canadian history, Project Mygale. This criminal operation involved much more than just tobacco. Also seized were millions in cash, over 800 kilograms of cocaine, meth, marijuana, and enough fentanyl to kill ten thousand Canadians.

This committee should also be alarmed that illegal tobacco from Ontario is now being found throughout Mexico and Central America. You can draw your own conclusions on why this is happening.

For your current study, our recommendation is fairly blunt. Laws are only useful if they are enforced. Therefore, our recommendation is to enforce the existing laws, which are not presently being enforced when it comes to illegal tobacco. Billions of dollars are being diverted to organized crime, often in plain sight. The government can barely bring itself to mention the problem, let alone act. Compare that to the U.S., where extensive action is being taken to address illegal tobacco because of the links to other criminal activities and terrorism.

I also have to flag that MPs will soon be asked to vote on a bill called Bill S-5, which seeks to impose plain and standardized packaging of tobacco products and standardization of cigarettes themselves, making it impossible for consumers, retailers, and law enforcement to differentiate a legal pack or product from an illegal one. This is even more so because the federal excise stamping system has been compromised, with legal stamps already routinely turning up on illegal products.

Health Canada even wants to impose the pack and cigarette formats made by illegal operators rather than pack and cigarette formats used in the legal industry. If you asked organized crime groups to come up with a piece of legislation to help them gain even more of the market share, it would be hard to beat Bill S-5. I know this is outside the scope of this study, but these issues cannot be looked at in isolation. If you want to combat money laundering and organized crime, legal tobacco companies must be given some means to differentiate their products—as is allowed for cannabis—and that means not passing Bill S-5 as is.

Thank you, and we look forward to your questions.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, members are here to work on behalf of their constituents, and we will focus on the priorities that Canadians sent us here to focus on.

This afternoon, we will continue debate on the Conservative opposition motion. Tomorrow, we will begin debate at second reading stage of Bill C-71 on firearms. We will resume this debate next Monday and Tuesday.

Tuesday we will resume second reading debate of Bill C-68, the fisheries legislation. Also, following question period that day, we will deal with the ways and means motion on the budget tabled earlier this morning. Finally, on Thursday, we will commence report stage and third reading of Bill S-5, on vaping.

I would like to remind colleagues that we will have Friday sitting hours for Holy Thursday next week.

Health

[Bill Casey, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Health, in relation to Bill S-5, an act to amend the Tobacco Act and the Non-smokers’ Health Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

In tabling this, I want to thank all the members of the committee and all the people who made presentations to the committee to help us understand the impacts of smoking and vaping. We learned that every 14 minutes someone in Canada dies of a nicotine-related illness, and that every day 100,000 young people start to smoke. This bill would help to discourage that trend. Again, I want to thank the committee and all those who participated.

The committee amended this bill, and I think we made it better. The report was passed unanimously by all parties. In the end, I am confident that this legislation will have an immediate impact and make Canadians healthier and safer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Thanks very much.

That concludes our study of Bill S-5.

We're going to take a little break and then we're going to go into committee business. It will be in camera because we have some work-related issues to deal with and some witness lists.

We'll take a break for a few minutes. Thank you very much. In five minutes we'll come back.

[Proceedings continue in camera]

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

We propose that Bill S-5, in clause 75, be amended by replacing line 14 on page 44. This is with reference to refillable vaping containers, to provide industry with time to develop refillable vaping devices that meet child-resistant closure requirements. There's no clarification on how toxic the liquid is. As Health Canada plans to introduce regulations that would deal specifically with these risks, amendment is necessary.

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

You will recall that at the last discussion of Bill S-5, we brought an amendment on acetate tow. It was ruled out of order because it called for changes to the excise tax law in order to be implemented. It's been reworded, so in order for it to be considered, I would ask for unanimous consent to reopen clause 8.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

All right.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Now we will vote on the motion as amended.

(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

It's interesting that as the health committee, we deal with urgent issues here. It doesn't matter where they come from. If they're urgent, we deal with them in the proper way, and I think that was the proper way to do that.

Thank you very much, everybody.

Now we go back to Bill S-5. I was hoping to get to a bit of pharmacare today, but it's looking like we might not make it.

We're on clause 71. There are no amendments.

(Clauses 71 to 74 inclusive agreed to)

Go ahead, Ms. Gladu.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

We have a motion to discuss this. It's just very difficult, because we have Bill S-5 and pharmacare and other motions that are waiting to be discussed that are probably just as urgent and as emergent, although I acknowledge how important this issue is. Does anybody have a thought on where our direction is?

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

I'm prepared to move the motion at this time if we're going to deal with it. I would say it is moved and we can discuss it right now. As I said, it's not my intention to delay the work that we are doing here today. If we could we take a few minutes, fine, and then we could move on to Bill S-5 and pharmacare and complete the work the committee has planned for today.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, the intention of my point of order is to put on the record my concern about rushing Bill S-5 through Parliament, and more specifically through this committee, without proper study and without the much-needed due diligence. It expands upon the concerns I raised at the February 28 meeting of this health committee.

I'm very much afraid of the consequences of plain packaging and how it may increase the use of contraband tobacco, both because of increased cost to the consumer as well as decreasing consumer knowledge of the brand of tobacco product. I doubt that plain packaging will have much of an impact on smoking rates, as we've seen recently in Australia. It may actually lead to an increase in the total consumption of cigarettes.

In Australia, as you may have noted in a recent March 12 article in The Australian, the University of New South Wales questions the effectiveness of measures to reduce smoking that have been put in place in that country, and that was without even considering the black market contraband purchases that are now widely available since plain packaging was introduced there.

Even a small increase in contraband means an increase in funding for organized crime and for terrorist organizations. We heard from Dr. Eyolfson that he considered me ridiculous for confirming the threats to Canada from the sale of contraband tobacco, but, Mr. Chair, these threats have been documented by such groups as the Library of Congress Federal Research Division; the congressional 9-11 Commission; the Cato Institute; the Macdonald-Laurier Institute; the United States Government Accountability Office; the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists; the Royal Canadian Mounted Police-led Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit contraband tobacco initiative; the Ontario Provincial Police contraband tobacco enforcement plan; the federal Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre, which you may more commonly known as FINTRAC; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which specifically cited Canadian intelligence officials who helped prosecute international jihadi terrorists who were using contraband tobacco to fund their activities; Interpol; the OECD; the Center for International Maritime Security; the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe; and the Center for the Analysis of Terrorism. It's quite an impressive list.

None of these organizations that have either researched or directly dealt with contraband and its negative effects in Canada were called before this committee to discuss the potentially negative consequences of this bill. The groups that sell and profit from contraband tobacco are, or have links to, international terrorist organizations and organized crime organizations. This committee did not hear from law enforcement officials, who will have to deal with the mess that this bill could create if we do not do our due diligence.

Mr. Chair, we need to learn from our errors and from the errors of others. In the 1990s, both Conservative and Liberal governments learned about the risks of overtaxing tobacco products. An explosion in contraband occurred, so they lowered taxes on tobacco, and, not coincidentally, that reduced illegal contraband sales.

Unfortunately, recently both the Ontario Liberals and the federal Liberals have increased their taxes on tobacco in their latest budgets. I'm not against increasing luxury taxes on unhealthy products, but I am against it when it drives up sales of illegal contraband that fund all sorts of nasty activities.

Weeks after their forgettable budget, the Liberals seem to be set on giving another potential gift to contraband in the form of plain packaging. Bill S-5 very much feels like an omnibus bill, because it changes very different aspects of the tobacco industry, including plain packaging for tobacco products and regulating the vaping industry, among other measures.

Thankfully, Bill S-5 will not ban nicotine and vaping products as they have done in Australia. I say “thankfully” because many smokers want to quit or at least practise their addiction in a much safer way, but I do have concerns that Bill S-5 could be too strict on the vaping industry as well.

Mr. Chair, the last meeting was a great source of frustration. We had not heard from very many witnesses who could have educated the committee on many different aspects of this bill. Instead, we plowed ahead with clause-by-clause consideration on amendments that we got barely 24 hours before the meeting—some of those amendments being received the day of, in fact, after our arrival in the room for the meeting.

We did not have sufficient time to properly understand the amendments nor what their impacts could be, which is why I did not vote on any of those amendments. I didn't feel that I had been adequately informed about them or that I had an opportunity to see what the consequences, good and bad, could be. I want to be diligent.

Procedurally, when a bill such as Bill S-5 comes before Parliament, it's important that we as legislators not rush the process. It's imperative that we proceed responsibly.

Our responsibilities as members of Parliament are described on pages 404-405 of the fourth edition of Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada, published in 1916, and I quote:

All the checks and guards which the wisdom of English parliamentarians has imposed in the course of centuries upon public expenditures now exist in their full force in the parliament of the dominion. ...when burthens are to be imposed on the people, every opportunity must be given for free and frequent discussion, so that parliament may not, by sudden and hasty votes, incur any expenses, or be induced to approve of measures, which may entail heavy and lasting burthens upon the country.

In a ruling from Speaker Fraser on April 14, 1987, regarding the government's use of majority to limit debate on important bills, Speaker Fraser had this to say:

It is essential to our democratic system that controversial issues should be debated at reasonable length so that every reasonable opportunity shall be available to hear the arguments pro and con and that reasonable delaying tactics should be permissible to enable opponents of a measure to enlist public support for their point of view. Sooner or later every issue must be decided and the decision will be taken by a majority.

I believe that we've just scratched the surface on the first part of Speaker Fraser's comments with regard to Bill S-5, and we are nowhere near the “sooner or later” part of this.

Occasionally the House and its committees take the necessary time to consider complex legislation. The Naval Aid bill of 1913 was such a case with regard to granting a $35 million donation to Great Britain for its navy. At the committee of the whole they kept the House going, virtually in continuous session, for as long as two weeks. That was the first time that closure had been used in our chamber. We had the famous and lengthy pipeline debate in 1956, the Energy Security Act of 1982, and we had a very lengthy debate on GST. Mr. Chair, quite frankly, the ability to have such debates is one of the last great tools of a democracy.

Beauchesne's sixth edition Parliamentary Rules and Forms, chapter 3, outlines some elements of the Constitution Act and our system of government that I believe are very relevant to this point:

More tentative are such traditional features as respect for the rights of the minority, which precludes a Government from using to excess the extensive powers that it has to limit debate or to proceed in what the public and the Opposition might interpret as unorthodox ways.

Beauchesne further describes the fundamental principles of our democracy as, and I quote:

To protect a minority and restrain the improvidence or tyranny of the majority; to secure the transaction of public business in an orderly manner; to enable every Member to express opinions within limits necessary to preserve decorum and prevent an unnecessary waste of time; to give abundant opportunity for the consideration of every measure, and to prevent any legislative action being taken upon sudden impulse.

Mr. Chair, I'm citing these points not to have endless debate but rather to gather as much information pertinent to Bill S-5 as is possible and to hear from a wider range of witnesses to provide us with this information. This committee has set everything aside to try to rush this legislation through here and through Parliament without what I believe is the necessary due diligence.

I urge this committee, before it's too late, to listen to more witnesses and seriously consider the consequences of enacting Bill S-5 without due diligence. I ask that the chair reopen the calendar to hear a wider range of witnesses and that the committee commit to getting this Bill S-5 study done right by reopening the study and delaying a committee stage referral to the House of Commons.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

We will bring our meeting to order. This is meeting number 95 of the Standing Committee on Health. We are studying 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 have previous notification of a point of order from Ms. Finley.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Look, it's a fundamental rule. The rule is that since the Excise Act, 2001 is not being amended by Bill S-5, it is the opinion of the chair that the amendment goes beyond the scope of the bill and is therefore inadmissible.

It isn't up to the health officials. This is a process rule. You can't amend another act if the original bill doesn't include that act. If the original bill is not affecting the Excise Act, you can't drag the excise tax in and amend it.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

This amendment was to amend the definition of manufacture and sell in the Tobacco Act to clarify that these activities include the manufacture and sale of tobacco products for export. I think it's pretty straightforward.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would like to propose that Bill S-5 in clause 63 be amended by replacing line 32 on page 40 with the following:

(2), 23.1(1) or (2) or 23.2(1) or (2), section 23.3, subsection 24(1) or (2), section 25,

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This amendment is directed at a different part of vaping promotions. It has to do with incentives.

This would add restrictions on the location of permitted incentive promotions. It would restrict permitted incentive promotions, for example price discounts, to specialty vaping product retail stores. At present Bill S-5 would permit, in places where young people do not have legal access, extensive incentive promotions for vaping products. But as we heard, although young people may not have access to these locations, these are places like bars, casinos, concerts, where non-smokers would be exposed. So for much the same reason we want to ensure that advertising is not targeted at non-smokers for nicotine, we want to make sure that incentive promotions are not targeted at non-smokers as well.

Again, Mr. Chair, I just want to reiterate that the only merit we heard from vaping products for tobacco is they are a preferable nicotine delivery system to tobacco. Nobody says they're safe and nobody says that there are health benefits to them and nobody wants any Canadian who presently doesn't ingest nicotine to take up the habit of ingesting nicotine by vaping products, so why would we permit incentive promotions to be targeted at non-smokers?

[James Van Loon]

A direct answer to your question is that on the day that Bill S-5 passed, it was unamended from here. Yes, that would be possible to put on billboards and stuff like that. Those ads would not be allowed to be appealing to kids; they would not be allowed to be lifestyle advertising. Furthermore, we do have this very broad regulatory authority to narrow that right down. With regard to any consultation document we put out about the regulation of vaping products in August of last year, we put some additional parameters about how we would propose to use that regulatory authority. It does talk about sports arenas and other places where there are lots of kids congregating.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I want to make sure I understand. Thank you for that.

My information is that Bill S-5 currently contains no restrictions at all regarding the location of ads. When I said that advertising could appear on billboards, at movie theatres, on public transit, near shelters, at ice rinks, is that correct, or are you telling me that Bill S-5 prohibits that or there's regulatory authority under the act that could prohibit that?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The purpose of this amendment is to restrict the advertising of vaping products, particularly to make sure they are not accessed by young people. This amendment would establish strengthened restrictions on the location of vaping product advertising to match the provisions restricting tobacco advertising in the Tobacco Act, and also, for that matter, the cannabis advertising in Bill C-45.

At present Bill S-5 contains few or no restrictions at all regarding the location of advertising. That means that such advertising could appear on television, on billboards, at movie theatres, on public transit buses and shelters used by children going to school, at ice rinks where minor hockey is played, and so on. Bill S-5's current vaping product advertising restrictions are weaker than those of every other developed country with similar legislation except the U.S. The provisions regarding the location of vaping product advertising are in fact so weak they resemble those in the 1964 tobacco industry voluntary advertising code in Canada.

I think it's incumbent upon us to tighten these up. I think we heard the minister say that she was very supportive. In fact, she wants us, I think, to tighten up the advertising restrictions on vaping. This one in particular states:

If the promotion is made using a means of telecommunication, the promoter must take reasonable steps to ensure that the promotion cannot be accessed by a young person.

So this one deals specifically with telecommunications. It's consistent with what I recently said, that we have to close every single door to make sure that nicotine cannot be marketed in any way to children. We should do everything possible to accomplish that. That's what this motion does for telecommunications.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Chair, I want to amend Bill S-5 in clause 32 by adding after line 7 on page 19 the following:

23.3 No person shall promote or sell a device that is a tobacco product or a part that may be used with such a device, whether or not the device or part contains tobacco, if the device or part has an appearance, shape or other sensory attribute or a function for which there are reasonable grounds to believe that it could make the device or part appealing to young persons.

[James Van Loon]

As Bill S-5 is currently drafted, it would not allow that.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Chair, I want to oppose this amendment.

Bill S-5 amends the Tobacco Act to clarify that tobacco products that manufacturers sell for export are included in the scope of the act. Tobacco regulation [Inaudible] 12% to the legislation can be drafted to exclude products for export from the scope of their application if needed. For example, labelling regulations for tobacco products that require the display of a graphic health warning are not required for manufactured products for export. Foreign jurisdictions can apply their own labelling requirements to products sold within the market. That's why I'm opposing this amendment.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

There are two amendments here—NDP-2 and NDP-3. Just so that my colleagues can follow this, they're split over two clauses. Essentially the purpose of both together is to provide regulatory authority to the ministry to require health warnings on cigarettes and other tobacco products. Bill S-5 already provides this authority for vaping products, so already the bill says you can put health warnings directly on a vaping product. I think the reasoning applies with equal force to providing the regulatory authority to do so for tobacco products. Certainly the regulatory authority for warnings should not be less on tobacco products than it is on vaping products.

Among the benefits of this amendment is that it would respond to concerns regarding contraband. It would provide a marking, thus identifying product intended for legitimate sale in Canada. This approach is referenced in international guidelines under the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. The proposed amendment also arose from testimony from the Canadian Cancer Society and the Quebec Coalition for Tobacco Control.

What I will say, colleagues, is that in my preparation for these hearings, from the witnesses, and in a lot of information I've received from people working on tobacco control in this country, I heard that it's about making sure smokers can actually see the warnings in a prominent place. That's very critical to bringing the message home to smokers that we want to bring home to them. That's why the flip packages and the ability to pull out a warning on a piece of paper and throw it away are considered undesirable. We want to make sure people can see it.

I want to be clear: this doesn't say that the warnings have to be on tobacco products, but it provides regulatory authority to do so. I personally think that having a warning on the tobacco product itself, which I know is an innovation, is something that would increase the effectiveness of health warnings, and perhaps even bring information to the smoker. It may not necessarily be a negative warning, although it probably would be—a warning like “This product contains carcinogens” right on the cigarette. It could also have positive messages, perhaps encouraging the use of vaping products as a harm-reduction measure as well.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

The amendment is that Bill S-5, in clause 18, be amended by replacing line 36 on page 12 to line 17 on page 13 with the following:

product, means (a) that the product (i) contains a drug that is set out in the prescription drug list, as amended from time to time, established under subsection 29 .1 (I) of the Food and Drugs Act, or a drug that is part of a class of drugs that is set out in that list, and (ii) is the subject of an authorization issued under that Act authorizing its sale; or (b) that the product contains a controlled substance, as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the sale or provision of which is authorized under that Act.

What that does is allow for decisions to be made, although currently there aren't necessarily any prescription products that are included for vaping. There's some research in the United States on that, and there may be some prescription products coming up that could be administered by a vaping product. This would allow the regulators to authorize the use of this substance if something comes up that is found to be beneficial and can be given in a prescription.

[James Van Loon, Director General, Tobacco Control Directorate, Department of Health]

Sure thing. No, cannabis products are not covered in this act. They are carved out. There's an amendment in here that puts one final little detail on making sure that those interfaces are correct, but no.

Secondly, on heat sticks, yes. They are covered by the definition of tobacco product as it is amended in S-5. S-5 has an amendment to the definition of tobacco product such that—and I'm going to paraphrase a little bit—devices that are necessary for the consumption of a tobacco product are also tobacco products, and they are covered.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

We'll call our meeting to order. This is meeting 94 of the Standing Committee on Health, pursuant to the order of reference on Tuesday, January 30, 2018, Bill S-5, an act to amend the Tobacco Act and the Non-smokers' Health Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts. We're here to do clause-by-clause.

I'd like to introduce our witnesses who are our resource panel whom we will call on when we get in real trouble. Mr. James Van Loon, director general, tobacco control directorate; Denis Choinière, director, tobacco products regulatory office; Anne-Marie LeBel, legal counsel; and Saira David, director, tobacco labelling division and plain and standardized packaging division.

Thank you very much for coming. We'll be calling on you as we need you.

I have notice of a point of order.

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

Thank you, Chair.

When she was here on Bill S-5, my colleagues and I had some questions about health care spending and related things, but we restricted our questions to Bill S-5. I would prefer to have a chance to ask her more questions. Some of the questions we have are more general, on spending for health initiatives. We could ask them in regard to the supplementary estimates, so I'd prefer to keep that date.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Okay.

Second, at our last meeting there was a proposal to invite the Minister of Health to come to present for supplementary estimates. I'm just looking back through the schedule again. We've just had her in for Bill S-5. The budget's coming down tomorrow. We'll be having her here shortly after that for main estimates. We can certainly cover off any questions we had for the supplementary estimates at that time. We have a ton on anyway. We have pharmacare to finish, Bill C-326, AMR, Bill S-228, and resumption of the food guide and whatever we're going to do with that. We have a really packed agenda.

I would like to move that we rescind our invitation to the minister and instead invite her to attend the main estimates when those are scheduled.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Thank you.

That's my concern. Is it two o'clock tomorrow that the amendments for Bill S-5 are due?

[The Clerk]

Sure. The volume of documents we've received on Bill S-5 has been something else. You mean Sinclair Davidson's brief, correct?

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

Thank you, Chair. I have a question for the clerk.

Ms. Finley asked for two things to be sent out on Bill S-5 that she had sent in. One went out, but the Davidson report didn't go out. If you can circulate it, that would be good.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Yes, it's now Tuesday at 2 p.m. It was Tuesday at noon.

Then we go to Thursday, March 1. That's the deadline for witnesses for Bill C-326. On Friday, we intend to report Bill S-5 to the House. On the 19th we intend to have supplementary estimates with the department. On the 21st, we have the adoption of the pharmacare report, and Mr. Oliver was just showing me that the Minister of Health from Ontario has resigned so he can study a national pharmacare program.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

There are just a couple of things on the calendar.

Clause-by-clause study for Bill S-5 is on Wednesday, and we need amendments by 2 p.m. Wednesday. It was originally 12 p.m., but we moved that to 2 p.m., so you get two extra hours.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your testimony here today and for coming to Ottawa discuss Bill S-5 with us. It's very much appreciated.

It seems to me that there's a bit of tension in the bill. One objective of the bill is to encourage people who are smoking to give up using cigarettes to get their nicotine dosage and to move to vaping. The second intent, which I think is the more important one, is to move the next generation of Canadians away from using nicotine and to stop the addiction cycle. I'm personally really excited that we're reaching a point where we may be able to begin to significantly reduce the rates of nicotine addiction in Canada.

The numbers I've heard are that somewhere between 85% and 95% of people who take nicotine will become addicted to it, so it is a very additive substance. Because the health impacts of smoking are so dire, I don't think we really understand the impact of chronic nicotine usage over a period of time, because people really do struggle with the health impact of smoking, which is so much more dramatic.

Ms. Doucas, you mentioned concerns. We heard the same thing from the Cancer Society. They wanted to make sure that lifestyle advertising was not permitted with vaping, and the minister was quite clear that she would support an amendment to that effect, so we're dealing now with brand promotion only.

The second issue that you raised was location, and the Cancer Society likewise raised location. I came across an August 2017 Health Canada consultation document, a proposal for the regulation of vaping products, which advises that they intend to use regulations to limit advertising for vaping products in or near locations that are attended predominantly by youth, such as schools, parks, and recreational and sporting facilities. There would also be restrictions placed on advertising in certain media, as well as a prohibition on advertisements on television and radio during certain times of day, and that kind of thing.

With the amendment the minister said she'd endorse and if the regulations deal with location, do you feel that we're doing enough to protect our youth from being drawn to vaping products and to nicotine through vaping?

[Flory Doucas]

I think we should be concentrating on nicotine vaping devices, because nicotine is the basis of an epidemic that's killing 45,000 Canadians. That said, the legislation, Bill S-5 as it is written currently, covers the e-liquids or the accessories regardless of whether they have nicotine or not.

[Flory Doucas]

The Quebec Coalition for Tobacco Control doesn't have a position on cannabis. We're part of the Quebec Public Health Association, and there is a project and spokespersons for cannabis. That being said, our understanding currently is that the nicotine vaping devices are illegal and the ones that don't contain nicotine were legal, but in practice, we saw all kinds of things happening.

We believe that the comprehensive approach to regulating these products would be to cover both, whether they contain nicotine or not. Please consider the fact that Bill S-5 applies the same provisions to the device as to the liquid, for example.

I think you're alluding to the fact that we are looking to eventually move people away from smoking cannabis to perhaps consuming it in different forms....

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Dr. Strang, do you know if Bill S-5 will regulate vaping? This is what I'm trying to drive at: is it specific to nicotine or tobacco vaping, or is it the vaping of substances generally, including cannabis? Do you know?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

Dr. Selby, do you know if Bill S-5 applies to the vaping of cannabis products?

[Flory Doucas]

Yes.

An amendment was made to bill S-5 regarding relative risk. People thought it was important that Health Canada make a statement concerning relative risk, that there be a statement with regard to the level of harmfulness of a product, or a graduated ranking of the harmfulness of products. I believe we must inform smokers in that regard.

For the moment, information is printed on cigarette packages to help people to stop smoking. Nothing prevents us from pointing to relative risk to encourage smokers to turn to less noxious products.

[Dr. Peter Selby]

Thank you for that very insightful question. It is something that I have been thinking about for a long time when it comes to addictive substances.

One thing we need to look at is that a substance can be addictive but not harmful, and substances can be harmful but not addictive. There are two things we are trying to balance here. The worst is when things are addictive and harmful at the same time, and a good example is cigarettes. As society has evolved and as innovations have occurred, we've come upon this disruptive innovation—this electronic device—with which we say we can take away most of those products of combustion, and if people will give up cigarettes completely and switch to this, they will get nicotine without the same level of exposure to those toxins.

We need Bill S-5, because right now, when people are selling it in this way, it's not regulated. People are making the liquids without any regulation, and we don't know what the concentrations are. If this comes out and it does become a product for cessation such that somebody says they want to give up smoking and this is part of a program in which they commit to not smoking anymore and they completely switch over and use it for eight to 10 weeks, then yes, a pharmacist's role in that situation would be very strong.

On the other hand, if you have people who still want to have the nicotine and they're making no commitment to stopping and they want to switch away from the most dangerous way of getting this to a less dangerous way to get it, then they should be able to access it without necessarily having to commit to completely quitting that product for good. We have seen in some addictions that this is the best this person is able to achieve for maybe one, two, or three years. As we are seeing harm reduction come out, that sometimes transitions into quitting over time.

I think whether it should be in pharmacies or whether it should be in stores depends on what the intent and purpose are. Now with pharmacies having sections in which medication as well as consumer products are for sale, there will be some ways to try to work out what has which claims, and we have to make sure that people don't get confused in what they're choosing and how they're choosing it. One way to do this would be that the consumer products might not be covered by an insurance plan, whereas products that are for a cessation program might be.

[Flory Doucas, Co-Director and Spokesperson, Coalition québécoise pour le contrôle du tabac]

Thank you.

I'll make a few remarks in French, and then I'll switch to English.

Good afternoon.

My name is Flory Doucas and I am the co-director and spokesperson for the Coalition québécoise pour le contrôle du tabac.

We appreciate your invitation to testify today in the context of your work on bill S-5.

With regard to Bill S-5, the coalition is fully supportive of the implementation of plain and standardized packaging in Canada, a measure supported by an impressive list of organizations across the country, including some 200 from Quebec, ranging from the association of pulmonary specialists to the City of Montreal.

Before we began, I showed you some packs to consider—a pack from Australia and one for the very same brand by the same manufacturer, sold here in Canada. Clearly, one of them is less appealing and attractive than the other. Clearly, the warning on one of them stands out more and is more persuasive. We encourage the Minister of Health and all parliamentarians to work together to implement plain and standardized packaging as quickly as possible.

That said, the Quebec coalition has serious concerns with Bill S-5's provisions regarding the promotion of nicotine vaping products.

First, allow me to provide some context. Dr. Selby actually pointed to some of it.

Manufacturers of nicotine vaping products can and always have been able to get their devices licensed as medicines or therapies to quit smoking. As for other medicines, manufacturers must provide proof and evidence regarding the claims associated with the therapeutic benefits of their products and show that when used as directed, the benefits outweigh the risks and the medicines alleviate a condition. They don't have to prove that their products are harmless, and many medicines actually have important side effects.

Getting a product licensed as a cessation therapy has its advantages. The Food and Drugs Act allows medicines to be advertised on TV and on the radio, with provisions as to how that can be done. Furthermore, as medicines, these products are reimbursed by many private and public sector plans.

To date, no manufacturer for these products has proceeded to get their nicotine vaping product licensed in Canada or anywhere else in the world.

Thanks to many public sector research dollars from all over the world, we now know enough to say that these products are less harmful than conventional cigarettes, at least in the short term. Also, as all other health groups that previously testified have said, the coalition supports the regulation of these products and believes that smokers should have access to them. The issue here is not access, but rather how these products should be promoted and to whom.

We acknowledge and welcome the amendment voiced by the health minister a week and a half ago. Before this committee, the Honourable Ginette Petitpas Taylor said:

Protecting youth from the dangers of nicotine addiction is a top priority of mine. I share some of the concerns expressed by the Quebec Coalition for Tobacco Control and others, especially regarding lifestyle promotion.

We do not allow lifestyle promotion of tobacco products, and we do not intend to allow it for cannabis products. To protect youth

—and the emphasis on “youth” is mine—

and non-smoking Canadians, I intend to support an amendment that would prohibit all lifestyle promotion of vaping products.

While that is a very beneficial improvement to this bill and will indeed better protect non-smoking adults, especially young adults who would have likely seen ads for these products in bars, such an amendment does nothing to better protect youth. Bill S-5 would permit lifestyle advertising in adult-only venues.

However, we do agree with the minister that youth deserve to be better protected from the promotion of addictive nicotine products, and we recommend that amendments be adopted to achieve this. This can only be achieved by further limiting locations where advertising can occur so as to ensure that kids do not see the ads.

Let me explain. We believe that the language in Bill S-5 has falsely reassured many in terms of what advertising would not be allowed. The language regarding content—not location, but content—of permitted advertising in Bill S-5 is essentially the same as what is currently allowed for tobacco products. The huge difference is with respect to the channel or location where permitted ads can be seen.

Proposed section 30.1 of Bill S-5 bans advertising for vaping products if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the advertising could be appealing to young people. Well, guess what? Subsection 22(3) of the current federal Tobacco Act bans lifestyle advertising as well as advertising that could be construed on reasonable grounds to be appealing to young people for tobacco products.

However, as you know, the legalization of nicotine vaping products will open the market to larger players than those currently operating in it now: the tobacco industry. Restrictions on location or channels where advertising is allowed would go a long way in protecting youth. If tobacco ads were allowed in more locations, the restrictions on content would not mean much, since, based on what we saw when tobacco ads were still allowed in newspapers and magazines, industry still has the capacity to indirectly associate its products to lifestyles and to make their products attractive to young people. This is despite the restrictions on content.

Thankfully, the impact of such ads was limited because they were only allowed in very limited settings. Let me provide some examples of ads published in free weekly papers and magazines before the fall of 2009, when the Harper government banned tobacco advertising in such channels.

I point to the ad for super-slim menthol products. This ad, showing a sleek and pretty product, was not considered to be appealing to young people. The next ad is for smokeless tobacco. Keep in mind that Quebec is the only province to require prominent health warnings on tobacco ads. In other provinces, the same ads would have appeared with no warning or a small, unpersuasive one put there voluntarily by the manufacturer. However, as you can see, the wooden panelling in the background creates the impression of a rustic atmosphere conveying a more natural way of life. With colours, textures, and overall feel, the manufacturer is able to send a positive message regarding this brand of smokeless tobacco.

Here's the next example, with the three smokeless packs. Do you see the mesh background? Does this remind you of a hockey net being hit by three pucks, or maybe more like a batting cage? Keep in mind that for a long time, two tobacco products were used and highly associated with baseball players and other sport professionals.

The geniuses in the tobacco industry's marketing departments regularly use sophisticated graphics to convey indirect messaging and confer a specific aura to different brands. They have shown that they do not need to use real images or depictions of people, cartoons, or animals to evoke lifestyle, to capture a sensation, or to make their products attractive to kids.

The tobacco industry has a history of paying the highest dollars to get top marketing professionals to push the limits of whatever is allowed in terms of promotion. When issues arose with the interpretation of the advertising provisions in the Tobacco Act, Health Canada did not rein in problematic ads swiftly. They were published and republished across the country.

Corrections did not come from the courts either, which is undoubtedly also a long process. Corrections only came later, when the Tobacco Act was amended to ban advertising through the promotional channels that had the problematic ads that kids were seeing.

We ask you to consider the history of tobacco control and the lessons learned from the past, and to act now to avoid similar issues with vaping products. Why risk exposing all our teenagers to ubiquitous promotion for highly addictive nicotine products? Ideally, permitted advertising would be seen by adult smokers. Minimally, advertising should be seen by adults or through channels that are primarily viewed by adults.

All health groups who have testified, including Dr. Gaston Ostiguy, a staunch promoter of e-cigarettes, and the Canadian Vaping Association, have all said that they would either recommend or support stronger dispositions to rein in advertising for these products. Do we really want our kids to see these kinds of ads on billboards in our streets and neighbourhoods? We believe that most Canadian parents would say no.

Thank you.

[Dr. Peter Selby, Professor, University of Toronto, Director of Medical Education, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, As an Individual]

Respected chair, members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health, thank you for inviting me to speak about Bill S-5. I am Dr. Peter Selby. I'm a medical doctor and professor at the University of Toronto, specializing in addiction medicine with a strong focus on tobacco addiction treatment as a clinician, researcher, and educator. I am the deputy physician-in-chief of education at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, where I also hold a post as a clinician scientist. As some of you may know, CAMH is the largest hospital of its kind in Canada.

I can tell you that I witness first-hand the devastation of addiction to tobacco and the difficulty my patients experience in quitting, even with the best help available. I also have programs running in over 300 sites in Ontario. I can tell you that the patients who are coming through those sites across the province are struggling. At best, only one in three will respond to the treatment available. When we have a goal to get to 5% by 2035, we need to get current smokers to stop now. It's indisputable that in addition to prevention, the most effective thing we can do now to save lives is to get current smokers to stop. However, we are stuck in tobacco control, in part because we haven't done enough of what works, of what we know works. There is a “know-do” gap. For example, we know that price, availability, and attractiveness of the product, especially to young people, are big promoters of why people will access these products, use these products, continue to use these products, and, might I say, relapse back to these products after they make an attempt to quit.

As a society, we need to be detoxified from the advertising that has made all of us collectively believe that smoking cigarettes—which, if you think about it, delivers 7,000 chemicals and 60 known cancer-causing agents and is the number one cause of house fires and premature deaths—is cool and a personal choice. Addiction is not a free personal choice, because when nicotine is delivered through combustion, it actually robs people of a choice to varying degrees. If you don't believe me, go outside any hospital in the middle of winter and tell me how many people you see out there puffing away at a cigarette while they have an IV going into their arm. No person who exercises free choice would choose to do that willingly when they're in a hospital because of a condition often caused by that addiction.

We should note that although nicotine is the addictive substance in the cigarette, the overall harm is caused by the combustion of the tobacco and the paper that is holding that tobacco, and the fact that it forces people, once they become addicted, to have that reloading almost every 90 minutes. It means that on average, Canadians who smoke are smoking 13 cigarettes a day, almost one per waking hour. In other words, it's a design flaw in how people are forced to get their nicotine if they want or need it.

We need to catch up to other countries that have introduced plain packaging, with the associated enhancements of warnings on the cigarette itself, and crack down on contraband tobacco manufacture and sales. We need to undo this attack on the choice of the addicted smoker by making the cigarette less attractive, with associated information on the package to prompt people to quit and to help them seek help if they are unable to stop on their own. Anything less is allowing commercial entities to prey on people with addictions, who more and more are the most vulnerable people in society.

Therefore, plain paper packaging needs to be supported. There is good evidence for it, scientific evidence. There's good evidence that as part of comprehensive tobacco control, it is an important strategy. People can look at it as if it's the only thing, but I don't think the Canadian tobacco control strategy is in its infancy; it requires enhancements to make sure it's more robust. I would not look at plain packaging as the magic solution, but as one more way in which we can advance the goals of a healthier society and a healthier next generation.

Having said that, I'll turn my attention to electronic devices that deliver nicotine. They are very promising innovations that we need to figure out and support in their development. The current products on the market have suffered from a lack of regulation, and I think this bill will allow for that innovation to occur and will also allow for that to potentially make cigarettes obsolete.

The regulations that have been proposed make sense and will allow researchers such as myself to study these devices. If we want to make a health claim for cessation, then we can go through this process and obtain evidence-based scientific proof that electronic devices, like other nicotine replacement products, can help people to quit tobacco. On the other hand, if a claim can't be made but we see a substitute that can reduce, by an order of magnitude, the exposure to many of those products of combustion, then we need to study it. The legislation and the regulations should allow for ongoing surveillance and study so that we can make sure there are standards in place for what exposure should be and for the maximum exposure allowed. Included in this should be the way the product is manufactured, the electronic juices put into it, the flavourings allowed or not allowed, and where and how it should be consumed. All these things need to be put in so that we can find the balance whereby people who are unable or unwilling to stop the use of cigarettes can choose to do something that will mitigate the harm to them.

That fits in with how Canada's drug policies have evolved, whether it's supervised injection facilities or cannabis legalization. We need to understand that legalization doesn't mean no rules. Rather, it means strong regulations to reduce the attractiveness and uptake by youth, which would include the advertising restrictions suggested in the submissions from the Canadian Cancer Society and my esteemed colleague Dr. Strang. We need to make sure this is put in place so that youth don't find it attractive because it has flavourings and labelling that make it seem like a cool thing to do. At the same time, these products and the facts about them should be made available to people who are addicted, in such a way as to help them switch from the combustible form and start breaking away from their addiction.

I will stop my comments there. Thank you.

[Bruce Cran, President, Consumers' Association of Canada]

Good afternoon, and thank you for having me here today. I appreciate it. My name is Bruce Cran, and I'm the president of the Consumers' Association of Canada.

The CAC has been advocating for consumers for the last 70 years, having been founded in 1947. We are Canada's oldest and most established consumer organization, and we're entirely governed by volunteers. We actually have no employees of any type. For the past 40 years, I have served Canadians as a consumer rep, and for the last 20 years as president of the association.

We oppose plain packaging of any product for five main reasons. First, it makes it difficult, if not impossible, for consumers to identify their preferred brands. Second, it increases the risk that consumers will be given the wrong product. Third, it greatly increases the risk that consumers will be provided with counterfeit products that have undergone no product or safety checks. Fourth, it is insulting to consumers, suggesting we cannot make decisions without being swayed by package design. Finally, it sets a very dangerous precedent for the packaging of all consumer goods.

We believe that consumers have a right to easily identify their preferred brand of a product, whether it be tobacco, alcohol, soft drinks, chips, or whatever. With that in mind, CAC polled consumers on plain packaging as soon as we saw it in the minister's mandate letter. Please let me share some of the results with you.

About 50% of consumers say it's important for them to be able to identify their preferred brand when purchasing, versus 22% who say it is not important. About 58% feel plain packaging will mean they are unable to distinguish their preferred brand from other brands. Some 71% feel that it will be more difficult to identify their preferred brand of a product with plain packaging. About 54% are concerned they will buy the wrong product by mistake, and 69% are concerned the product they are buying could be counterfeit.

Branding is the very basis of the consumer economy. It is what helps consumers make their purchasing decisions, recognize the product they want to buy, and know that the products are legitimate. If you take away branding, you're kneecapping consumers.

When all products must look exactly the same, the counterfeiting process becomes easier. The government itself seems to recognize this, as all the new designs and formats of our currency, for example, are increasingly sophisticated in an effort to fight counterfeiting. If we need more sophisticated designs of our currency to prevent counterfeiting, how does the government dismiss the fact that a less sophisticated design for a multi-million-dollar product will be leading to a counterfeiting explosion? There is no other logical conclusion.

However, we also polled consumers on whether plain packaging would be effective in reducing the products with negative health impacts and found the following: 34% of Canadians feel mandatory plain packaging will be effective in reducing the use of such products. Even fewer, 25%, feel packaging will be effective in reducing their own preference in brands. About 55% view taxation as a useful tool, 89% support warning messages to ensure consumers are aware of the health risks, and 90% support improving consumer education about these products and their health risks.

The CAC must take a principled stand against plain packaging, not because we have any particular affinity for smoking but because introducing these packages will probably create a precedent for many other products. We don't want to see plain packaging on our wine bottles or anything else that we buy and have become used to seeing labels on.

Finally, implicit in Bill S-5 is the notion that consumers are simpletons who consume unhealthy products because of the packaging, when in fact humans have been engaged in unhealthy behaviours of various kinds for as long as man has walked the earth. Therefore, it is incredibly simplistic to suggest that plain packaging is the solution. In reality, the solution is some combination of education, counselling, direct support, and outreach targeted at the most at-risk populations. However, that takes time and effort, whereas something like plain packaging offers government a feel-good solution without doing any actual work.

The CAC recognizes that taking a stand against plain packaging will lead to attacks from some in the public health community; however, those advocates long ago lost touch with consumers. Our polling clearly indicates that measures that are taken in a simplistic belief....

Sorry. I'm having dreadful trouble reading this without glasses, but that's my case.

I'd like to thank you for having me here today. Next time I'll see if I can get a proper pair of glasses.

[Dr. Robert Strang, Chief Medical Officer of Health, Nova Scotia Department of Health and Wellness]

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the committee today. I'm appearing on behalf of provincial and territorial chief medical officers of health and am providing a collective public health perspective, not individual provincial-territorial jurisdictional positions.

To start, I would like to acknowledge the ongoing work of the federal government to continue to advance tobacco control in Canada. Bill S-5 is an important next step in that work. I would also like to thank all the federal political parties for their support at the second reading of Bill S-5.

Tremendous gains have been make in tobacco control in Canada, but the use of tobacco products remains our number one cause of preventable death. There is much more that needs to be done. As you heard from Minister Petitpas Taylor on February 14, the federal government is committed to the goal of reducing tobacco use rates to 5% by 2035. Reaching that goal will require a collective focus on two areas: preventing youth and young adults from starting to use tobacco products, and supporting current users to quit. Bill S-5 will make important advances in both areas, and is supported by the provincial-territorial chief medical officers of health. However, we would like to offer suggestions to strengthen the bill and maximize its impact.

I will start with plain packaging. Restricting the advertising and promotion of tobacco products has been a critical part of the success to date in tobacco control in Canada. Requiring plain and standardized packaging, as per Bill S-5, will remove one of the few remaining ways for tobacco products to be marketed to Canadians. It will prevent initiation and will support long-term cessation. If you look at the full body of evidence on the impact of plain and standardized packaging in other countries, as has been previously provided to the committee by the Canadian Cancer Society, it clearly shows the potential contribution that plain and standardized packaging could make in continuing to decrease the use of tobacco products in Canada. It has also clearly been established that claims by the tobacco industry that plain and standardized packaging increases the use of contraband tobacco products are inaccurate and exaggerated.

Two areas where Bill S-5 could be improved regarding plain and standardized packaging are, one, amend the bill to provide regulatory authority to allow health warnings directly on tobacco products in addition to packages, as the bill does for vaping products; and, two, amend the bill to provide regulatory authority to allow provisions of the act to apply to herbal smoking products, including herbal water pipes, in the future.

I'll now move to electronic nicotine delivery systems, ENDS, or as they're more commonly known, e-cigarettes.

Eight provinces have ENDS legislation covering areas such as legal age of sale, public use, retail sale, and point-of-sale advertising. Provincial and territorial chief medical officers of health are pleased that the federal government is moving forward with their legislation on these products, but we share concerns regarding the advertising and promotion already provided to this committee by other tobacco control organizations. The evidence to date on ENDS is that while they may help some individuals to be successful in cessation, ENDS may also inhibit cessation by facilitating the alternating use of ENDS and tobacco products. In short, the evidence on ENDS as a cessation product is at best equivocal. There is also growing evidence that, likely because of ultrafine particulate in inhaled vapour, the risk of cardiovascular disease from the use of ENDS is similar to that from smoking tobacco products. Furthermore, evidence from Canada and the U.S. shows that youth who use ENDS are at increased risk of starting to use tobacco products.

The regulatory approach to ENDS, including advertising and promotion, needs to find an appropriate balance based on existing evidence between any potential net benefit as a tobacco cessation product and potential risk to increasing youth initiation with tobacco products and inhibiting tobacco use cessation. In our opinion, as currently written, Bill S-5 does not provide that balance and is inconsistent with existing and proposed approaches to advertising and promotion for tobacco and cannabis respectively.

As it is currently written, Bill S-5 would allow widespread marketing and promotion of ENDS comparable to the 1960s tobacco industry voluntary code. We recommend that Bill S-5 be substantially strengthened by, one, requiring that ENDS advertising may only be information or brand advertising. This is the approach for tobacco in the Tobacco Act and the proposed approach for cannabis in the cannabis act. Our second recommendation is to remove provisions that allow lifestyle advertising in bars and in publications sent to adults. Third, restrict the provision of incentive promotions—for example, price discounts—to specialty ENDS retail stores. Fourth, place the same restrictions on the locations of ENDS advertising as are currently in the Tobacco Act and in the proposed cannabis act.

These amendments would create a much better balance between allowing those who currently use tobacco products to be informed about ENDS as a potential cessation support and protecting youth and young adult non-smokers.

I will end by noting that detailed language on these recommended regulatory changes has been supplied to this committee previously by the Canadian Cancer Society.

Thank you again for the opportunity to provide this information to you today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

I call our meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 93 of the Standing Committee on Health. We're continuing our study on Bill S-5. I want to welcome all our guests.

Dr. Strang and Dr. Selby, we have seats here for you with signs on them, but we can see you and we thank you for working with us on this study.

We'll start with Dr. Robert Strang, chief medical officer of health with the Nova Scotia Department of Health and Wellness. Thank you for attending.

From the Consumers' Association of Canada, we have Mr. Bruce Cran, president. Thank you.

As an individual, we have Dr. Selby, professor, from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, University of Toronto, by teleconference.

From the coalition québécoise pour le contrôle du tabac, we have Flory Doucas, co-director and spokesperson.

Thank you all for coming.

Before we start, I will mention that we're going to have committee business at the end of our round of questions. I was asked to tell you that members can get a technical briefing on this bill from the department officials if you want one. If you want a technical briefing on the bill, they'll give you the details and technical aspects of it.

Again, we're going to have committee business after we finish our questions.

Dr. Strang, if you'd like to make a 10-minute opening statement, we'll start off with you. Each speaker will have 10 minutes for an opening statement, and then we'll go to questions.

Dr. Strang, the floor is yours.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

I'm sorry. I didn't realize you had copies of the budget. We can do the budget then.

The last item is, I need approval for the budget for Bill S-5. You all have a copy of it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

My schedule shows that our next meeting is on February 26, at 12 noon. That's a pharmacare meeting. Does everybody agree with that?

We meet again for the second time that day at 3:30 p.m. That should be our last double-duty day, and that's for more on our study of Bill S-5. At noon we have pharmacare. Then, at 3:30 p.m., we have Bill S-5, and then on Wednesday the 28th, we do clause by clause for Bill S-5.

Thank you very much, Madam Vice-Chair, for doing that, because that all happened when I wasn't here.

[The Clerk]

My apologies again, I have one last note on the deadline for amendments.

Given that this committee adopted a motion in May of 2016 to give a 48-hour deadline for independent members to submit an amendment before the clause-by-clause deadline, if we allow the committee members to have a shorter deadline, on the 27th, at noon, it does appear to be unfair to independent members.

I would suggest that the committee adopt a motion that all members of the House have the same deadline to submit amendments to Bill S-5, which would be on February 27, at noon.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Marie-Hélène Sauvé]

Yes, just quickly, after consultation with the legislative council and legislative clerks concerning the deadline for amendments to Bill S-5—I know we talked about this already, so I apologize for bringing this back to the table—the legislative teams needs some time to put the amendments package together before distributing it to all members of the committee and in order for the committee to have enough time to look over the package.

In order to do that, what the legislative clerks are proposing is that the deadline for amendments be on Tuesday, the 27th, at noon. That gives them time to put the package together and distribute it to all members by the end of day on the 27th so that members will have most of the day to review the amendments package on the 28th before we go to clause by clause.

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

What amendments would you like to see specifically to S-5?

I'll go to both of you.

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I have already met you in other circumstances, I will get straight to the point.

First of all, I want to say that I am happy to see that the industry that you represent, or your association, takes part in a positive way to the development of the Bill.

You were here when we asked questions to the Minister earlier. We're discussing Bill S-5. What concerns you when it comes to the health of young people? I didn’t hear you talk about it. You represent an industry and you mostly talk about the business side of things.

Obviously, health is mostly a ministerial responsibility, but we must get information and educate ourselves on the measures to take to improve the health of Canadians and to convince ourselves of the effectiveness of these measures. As Mr. Chair mentioned, we’ve only just begun to collect information on that topic.

I’ve already taken a minute for my introduction.

Mr. Kealey, you may answer first, if you wish.

[Sherwin Edwards, President, Vap Select Inc.]

Good evening. My name is Sherwin Edwards. I want to thank you first and foremost for your time in allowing me a moment to bear witness. I am the President of Vap Select Inc. based in Mirabel, Quebec. Vap Select is a proudly owned and operated Canadian company, which was created in 2011 with the consumer in mind. We produce affordable, innovative vaping products for consumers, giving them an alternative to cigarettes. All Vap Select products are manufactured in GMP facilities and adhere to strict global certifications. To meet the growing consumer demand for these products, we recently expanded to a 6,500-square-foot facility.

However, that is only part of the reason why I am here today. I am also the sponsor of a 10,000-plus signature petition that has been tabled in the House of Commons on Bill S-5, January 30, 2018. That petition calls on the government to halt and review Bill S-5, and to create a fair and logical category for vape products clearly setting them apart from tobacco.

Let me start on that point. It should be obvious to anyone that vaping products and tobacco products are two completely different things and do not belong in the same piece of legislation. You don't put alcohol and soft drinks in the same legislation because you drink both of them. Therefore, you shouldn't put vaping products and cigarettes in the same category because both are inhaled.

Vaping products like e-cigarettes are a much safer alternative to tobacco for those people unwilling or unable to quit smoking. They provide the nicotine that smokers crave without the harmful effects of combustion. That's an important point. Nicotine on its own is no more harmful than caffeine, and nicotine occurs naturally in many products that we all consume daily. It's the combustion that causes the negative health effects of smoking, not the nicotine.

That is why esteemed medical and scientific bodies like Public Health England and the Royal College of Physicians have said that e-cigarettes are at least 95% less harmful than smoking.

Last week, Public Health England came out with an updated report on e-cigarettes, and let me quote directly from that organization's press release on the main findings:

vaping poses only a small fraction of the risks of smoking and switching completely from smoking to vaping conveys substantial health benefits

e-cigarettes could be contributing to at least 20,000 successful new quits per year and [probably] more

e-cigarette use is associated with improved quit success rates over the last year and an accelerated drop in smoking rates across the country

many thousands of smokers incorrectly believe that vaping is as harmful as smoking; around 40% of smokers have not even tried an e-cigarette

there is much public misunderstanding about nicotine (less than 10% of adults understand that most of the harms to health from smoking are not caused by nicotine)

the use of e-cigarettes in the [United Kingdom] has plateaued over the last few years at just under 3 million

the evidence does not support the concern that e-cigarettes are a [gateway] into smoking among young people (youth smoking rates in the UK continue to decline, regular [e-cigarette] use is...almost entirely confined to those who have [previously smoked cigarettes])

I want to pick up on the fourth and fifth points that I cited from the Public Health England report, both of which deal with public misunderstandings regarding the risks of vaping and nicotine. I put the blame for this squarely on the shoulders of governments and health groups, some of which, deliberately or not, have misled Canadians about the risks of vaping products. Those who continue to do so deserve public shaming for scaring people away from these devices, which usually means they continue smoking, which is more harmful to their health.

I ask the committee a question. From whom would you rather get advice from vaping products such as e-cigarettes, organizations like Public Health England and the Royal College of Physicians, or high-paid lawyers lobbying for tobacco groups? For me, when I want medical advice, I go to a doctor, not a lawyer.

You may have seen or heard that a public debate on vaping products was recently held here in Ottawa during National Non-Smoking Week. I was there. Dr. Ostiguy, who you heard from on Monday was there, as was the University of Ottawa's David Sweanor and a representative from the Tobacco Harm Reduction Association of Canada.

We had a great discussion on the value of vaping products for reducing tobacco use, but completely absent from the discussion was Health Canada, or any of those so-called health groups who are misleading the public about the risks of these products. None of the anti-vaping products groups or health advocates accepted the invitation to debate their position in public, but I see a couple of them appeared before your committee on Monday. They won't shy away from that.

These groups know their position is indefensible, which is why they refuse to debate people like myself, or Dr. Ostiguy or Dr. Sweanor, in public. If this committee wants Canadians to stop smoking cigarettes, as does the health minister and likely all Canadian citizens, then stop listening to the moralist and public health community who are deliberately misleading Canadians about the risks of vaping products. With that in mind I have two recommendations for the committee.

First, the vaping provisions of Bill S-5 should be stripped out entirely and Health Canada told to go back to the drawing board to come up with legislation that treats these products as completely separate from tobacco. Health Canada didn't throw marijuana, which when consumed via the combustible process actually has higher levels of tar content than cigarettes do, into the Tobacco Act, so why are you letting them put vaping products in there? Tobacco products and vaping products are completely separate, different products that require their own distinctive legislative framework.

Second, whether in a new bill, or if Bill S-5 is passed, smokers need to be properly informed about the relative health risk of tobacco products versus vaping products. Sweden has virtually eliminated tobacco-related cancer because smokers switched to non-combustible products. The U.K., which embraced the principles of harm reduction, has also seen smoking rates and smoking-related illness drop to an all-time low, hence, also reducing the burdens and the cost on their health system overall. There's enormous public health potential if Canadian smokers are well-informed and given choices to switch as well, but they will only do so if they know about vaping products such as e-cigarettes and understand the relative risk being greatly lesser than smoking tobacco. I have serious concerns about the constraints in Bill S-5 that would prevent the vaping industry from communicating and sharing this information with smokers.

Finally, I want to make one more point about this whole debate and particularly the anti-smoking groups who continue to spread information about e-cigarettes and suggest that there are better ways of quitting such as cold turkey, or using the patch, or the gum, or something else. The people making those claims are not smokers and, quite frankly, I would encourage them to butt out. Some smokers do succeed in quitting through some of these methods I just mentioned, but for others it is a monumental struggle, in some cases impossible. For those people and the people who want to continue to use nicotine, vaping products are a lifeline. For governments to put unnecessary restrictions on these products and restrict the ability of those offering these products is unjust, and some experts like David Sweanor from the University of Ottawa will tell you it is even unconstitutional. I am of that opinion also and so are the 10,251 Canadians from coast to coast who signed petition E-1237 tabled in the House of Commons on January 30. That is another reason why you have to hit the pause button on this bill and work to get it right. Vaping is not smoking. E-liquids are not tobacco.

As you can probably tell I'm very passionate about this subject. I thank you for listening and I look forward to your questions.

[Marc Kealey, Member and Public Affairs Counsel, Canadian Vaping Association]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate, through you, the members giving us an opportunity to share our perspective on this piece of legislation.

I'm a health public policy expert, Mr. Chairman. I'm a member of the Canadian Vaping Association, and I'm its lead on government affairs. With me today is Mr. Boris Giller, who's a CVA board member and the co-owner of one of Canada's largest vape product shops, 180 Smoke.

Together, Boris and I have expertise in the vape industry. The industry in Canada is a decade old. CVA has been the premiere advocate on behalf of the industry, its members, and those who vape. Our goal is fair legislation and regulation. Our reach goes across Canada, and our impact with government goes to all three levels.

I want to thank your committee members, the House of Commons, and the Senate for your leadership on this. It's a tough piece of legislation. As a government, as a committee, and as regulators, you said yes to vaping in Canada, and regulated it instead of an outcome that would have forced it underground. We appreciate that. It is a viable alternative to smoking. The Canadian model as we contemplate it today—if you travel in our circles—is envied around the world, believe it or not.

Let me further contextualize that. A few years ago, vaping in Canada was a hobby. Today it's a viable industry, increasing exponentially as vapers seek an alternative to smoking cigarettes. The number of vape product shops has grown exponentially in Canada as well, with the current numbers of almost 1,000 stores in Canada representing well over 5,000 employees, serving over a million customers, and generating hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue. At the same time, there are 100 e-liquid and hardware manufacturers representing significant pre- and post-market sales, which in turn underscores significant recurring and predictable revenues against a marketplace of those who want to vape and no longer smoke cigarettes.

Please understand that the growth of this industry has not been the result of expensive marketing campaigns. The CVA and our member organizations are not aligned with tobacco. In fact, the growth of vaping has been a direct result of the substantial demand for vape products by millions of ex-smokers. The market will only continue to grow, not only as a viable and less harmful alternative to cigarettes, but also because of government initiatives that legislate it as a less harmful product in Canada.

The majority of Canadian vape product shop operators, manufacturers of e-liquids, and advocates are, like many who vape, former smokers. They have chosen to vape rather than smoke cigarettes. They realize the potential of this disruptive technology as a less harmful alternative to smoking, both cigarettes and of course now cannabis.

CVA has taken substantial risks to pursue a mission aligned with Bill S-5. Many people associated with vaping would assert a different path of perhaps fighting government on what they believe is their right to vape. However, contrary to that view, the Canadian Vaping Association believes that working with government on making this bill work is more palatable and more productive.

We believe Canada is a role model for other countries in developing and implementing effective ways of reducing the harms of smoking. At the provincial level, smoke-free legislation has taken hold. I've been part of the smoke-free Ontario campaign from the start, 10 years ago. At the national level, Canada's tobacco reduction initiative is enviable. Through Bill S-5, we believe the Government of Canada has been responsible, implementing suitable and effective legislation that ensures adult smokers have access to products that substantially reduce the harm that cigarette smoking is known to cause, all the while recognizing that a less harmful alternative ought to be available.

To amend the Tobacco Act and create a category for vaping is not only welcome, but also suggests that vaping is a choice over smoking and has the potential for dramatically reducing disease and death caused by smoking. CVA encourages members of this committee to review the growing body of evidence, including qualified literature, global studies, and research on vaping that modifies our views. Frankly, it ought to form the thinking of your committee when looking to draft regulations for vaping going forward.

Over the last few years, the Canadian Vaping Association has met with several of you on the committee to encourage your support for our views and to offer advice. Let me be specific.

Recent studies in the aggregate have shown that vaping is less harmful than smoking. The former minister herself referenced this CVA messaging when she introduced the legislation in November of 2016. On that point, we're pleased that the legislation includes a timely review, so that as science and research prove out in favour of vaping as a less harmful alternative, those findings will in fact be reflected appropriately in your regulations.

With respect to overall industry regulation, we've been working closely with qualified organizations on the development and implementation of an accreditation program at the national level.

The patchwork of regulations from provincial legislative initiatives across Canada has confounded this industry while we wait for this milestone to occur. Bill S-5 does offer a national framework for retail and manufacturers of vape products, and we aspire to have this reflected in our national accreditation program plan.

CVA board member Sam Tam sits with Health Canada on the Underwriters Laboratories of Canada committee to establish global standards for technology, devices, and battery safety as they pertain to vaping. Furthermore, our board president, Shaun Casey, sits on a Standards Council of Canada committee chaired by Health Canada for the establishment of ISO e-liquid manufacturing safety standards.

An accreditation program, we believe, will provide comfort to you, as regulators, that vape products and services available to consumers are of a quality that is measured against a robust set of standards. A national accreditation program would require vape manufacturers, e-liquid and hardware manufacturers alike, as well as vape product shops, to commit to and submit to a program where a common set of standards for operations of their physical plants, policies and procedures, and other variables are measured. Any negligent behaviours or deficiencies would result in fines or perhaps remediation plans, respectively, to demonstrate compliance. We are committed to this process.

The utmost important piece of this legislation, in our view, ought to be the value of the information and the manner in which customers receive detail by a vape product shop employee. When they make the choice to acquire or consume a vape product, they need to know what they're buying. To that end, we encourage the committee to work with us at the Canadian Vaping Association as we develop a certification program for vape product shop employees. Purveyors of vape products anywhere in Canada ought to be well trained to help customers make the logical choice to a less harmful product than cigarettes.

We're considering qualified career colleges, not only to develop a curriculum, but to have it delivered in every province. It would be entirely helpful to make this certification program part of your intended regulations and mandatory in all provinces.

In fact, the FDA in the United States referred to our plans for certification in Canada as a beacon to follow in the United States. It contemplates national dialogue in the United States on its own vape legislation, and it has looked to Canada, and especially what we're doing on certification, as a role model to that end. Our president, Shaun Casey, and I have testified on many occasions in the United States on this issue.

The Canadian Vaping Association believes the goal of regulation should be to ensure that maximum benefits are realized while minimizing potential harms. We believe that sales should be restricted to those over the age of majority. We concede that restricting its use in public spaces is inevitable. We agree that certain lifestyle promotion or advertisements are not appropriate.

The amendments we put forward on Bill S-5 to the Senate committee ensure that youth are not able to access these products, and we agree that the use and acquisition of vaping tools should be limited to public areas that minors are prohibited from entering.

Additionally, the amendments that we originally put forward to the Senate provide adult smokers with access to assistance provided through qualified vape product shop employees, which can be crucial to the success of a smoker looking for an alternative to cigarettes.

Vaping technology has catapulted in quality by leaps and bounds. Research, too, has debunked the myths that have permeated mainstream media about vaping, and because the technology is getting better, vaping may yet prove to be an effective breakthrough in anti-smoking.

I welcome your questions, and thank you for your attention.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I guess I want to end with “lifestyle”. I'm not sure I'm clear on this. Bill S-5 does restrict the kinds of ads for vaping products that are allowed in public places, those that are reasonably attractive to either lifestyle. That's in proposed section 30.2. It places fewer restrictions on ads in adult-only venues such as bars, where lifestyle ads and purchase incentives are permitted. That's in proposed section 30.3. In Alberta, 18-year-olds are in bars—

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Once again, with respect to the regulations and in the proposal that we've brought forward in Bill S-5, we absolutely want to make it clear that there are going to be no names of flavours that are going to be attracting children.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

As you're aware, we continue to work on our tobacco strategy at the moment. We've finished off a consultation process with many Canadians. In December of this year, we released our “What We Heard” report with respect to those consultations.

As a result of those consultations, we are taking all that information in hand. That is going to form the next part of our framework moving forward. We recognize that if we want to attain the objective of reducing tobacco use by 2035, we have to move forward. With respect to the area of Bill S-5, this is absolutely a step in the right direction. We recognize when we look at the issue of plain packaging that there's an absolute correlation and that we'll see the number of smokers reduced as a result.

That is why I'm very pleased that we're able to move forward with this legislation, and I'm looking forward to seeing it receive royal assent. From there, we'll be able to enforce the rules and regulations that will be in place. From there, we'll be continuing with other components of our strategy to make sure that we can work hard to achieve our 2035 target.

[James Van Loon, Director General, Tobacco Control Directorate, Department of Health]

We do take that very seriously. First of all, I would say, again, that we don't see any evidence that plain and standardized packaging contributes to the problem of illicit trade. This is what we hear from the other regulators who've moved down the way. We do see evidence that it reduces the appeal of the products, especially to young people.

On the topic of how to deal with the problem of contraband, we agree this is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. Over the last five years, the government spent $43 million working on the contraband issue through various partnerships, with Public Safety, the RCMP, CBSA, and various other police forces.

On the tax stamps, they have overt and covert markings, absolutely. Bill S-5 provides us with the authority to require alphanumeric stamping on individual tobacco products. That would help with tracking.

Finally, when I look at the Australian model, they have allowed covert marks on the packs by industry. That's something we're looking at and considering as we figure out what the regulations will actually say.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

You bring up some very good points, Ms. Gladu.

Protecting youth is a priority of mine as health minister. We recognize at this point that the vaping industry in Canada is worth millions of dollars.

We recognize people are selling products all over the place. The products they purchase are unregulated. We don't know where they come from, and there are no requirements for the devices they use to vape.

That is why Bill S-5 is so important because we certainly want to make sure the rules are put in place to control these types of products. Keeping it out of the hands of our children is a priority. That is why setting the minimum age of 18 for youth consumption is a step in the right direction because, as you have indicated, we certainly want to make sure the area for their access to it is going to be extremely limited.

With regard to the sales of the products, I'm going to be frank. I'm going to have to turn it over to one of my officials, Denis, as to exactly where it's going to be sold because I don't have the specific details.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Thank you very much for being here. Welcome back to the health committee.

There's been a good discussion already about the balancing act that's here in Bill S-5. One one hand, we want to get our youth away from nicotine and away from tobacco. We don't want them to be enticed or brought in to become addicted to nicotine. For me, that is the number one priority. I've heard you say that as well. That is, to me, what must happen, and that's what Bill S-5 is continuing to further.

We have a second item, though, which is trying to move adults who have tobacco smoking habits onto a healthier way of consuming nicotine than smoking. Those are the competing agendas. Personally, I don't think the balance is there. I think you've mentioned a few times that you think it's there, so I was delighted to hear that you're entertaining an amendment on lifestyle. I think that's a very important one, so thank you for that.

My second point, though, is on location of advertising and location for vapour product advertising. I have a 13-year-old son. I don't want to be at my neighbourhood bus stop with him with a vaping advertisement on my local bus stop. I don't want to go to the movie theatre and try to explain what vaping is and why vaping is a product that's being advertised. I don't want to go to the local hockey rink and explain to him what vaping is and why it's done. Location is a critical issue. I believe that, with the way it's set up now, we're going to be exposing young Canadians to vape products when we don't have to.

The Canadian Cancer Society was very strong on this one. What they said about Bill S-5 was that the vaping restrictions are weaker than the Tobacco Act and Bill C-45 for cannabis, that the vaping product advertising restrictions are weaker than in almost every other developed country except for the United States, and—these are all location advertising—the provisions regarding the location of vaping advertising are so weak that they resemble those of the 1964 tobacco industry advertising.

I guess my question to you is this. Would you please consider an amendment—and I'd like to bring one forward—that also restricts the location of advertising for vaping? I think there are lots of ways to communicate to adults who are smokers that vaping is a better way to consume nicotine, other than putting it on hockey rink boards. Would you consider an amendment on location?

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I think, once again, we're talking about apples and oranges here. I think we have to be very, very clear. We are moving forward with Bill S-5 with respect to the issue of flavour. We want to make sure that there are strict restrictions in place to ensure that in no way will these products be attractive to children.

We also recognize, however, that there are benefits to adults who choose to use these products. Going from smoking to using vaping products, the evidence is clear that it's less harmful. That is why we're moving forward with this balanced type of regime to ensure that we can offer the products to those who need it.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Do you mean with respect to Bill S-5?

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I haven't seen any specific research with respect to that, but that's why it's really important for us to strike that balance with the proposed Bill S-5. We really want to make sure that we in no way promote vaping products to children under the age of 18, or promote them to anyone who's a non-smoker at this point in time. We don't want to create another generation of people who are addicted to this substance. That is why we're very restrictive with respect to our marketing and our promotional materials, to ensure they don't encourage young people to want to start this habit.

That being said, as I've indicated, we also recognize that it can be a very good harm reduction approach when it comes to smokers. We certainly want to ensure that the products are available for those who smoke right now, with the hope that they are going to be able to wean themselves off.

I have something to share with you if I have the time, Mr. Chair.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Absolutely. Again, as health minister, my responsibility is the health and safety of Canadians. My specific priority, when I look at Bill S-5, is also is that I have a bias with respect to youth. I really want to make sure that we keep these products out of the hands of our youth. We also want to prevent our Canadians and our young people from being addicted to nicotine. You're absolutely right. In moving forward, we've been working very hard to ensure that this bill gets through the Senate and also the House to ensure that we can get this to fruition.

With respect to the area of the amendments that I've indicated in my opening statements I absolutely welcome, I welcome an amendment to the area of lifestyle promotion. I, in no way, feel that it should be allowed in the public sphere. We recognize that we need to limit that, because we certainly want to ensure that Canadians are not going to be enticed to start smoking, either our youth or our adults who aren't smokers now.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Yes, the objectives of Bill S-5 are twofold. First of all, as health minister, my first priority is to protect the health and safety of our youth, and that's moving forward one of the main objectives of this bill. The other objective is to seize the opportunity. We recognize that there are several tobacco smokers right now who are wanting to switch from using tobacco and to transfer to vaping products. We can see that there could be some benefit to that.

We don't want to allow young people to be encouraged to use vaping products. That's why we want to ensure that there are strict regulations in place with respect to marketing and promotion. We don't want them to be enticed by that at all. On the other end of the spectrum, we also recognize that flavoured products, for some Canadians, can help them with kicking the habit of smoking and using vaping as an alternative option.

Going back to the youth, we want to make sure that the actual names of the flavours should not be appealing to youth in any way. For example, I think all kids like cotton candy, and probably some adults do too. We want to make sure these types of names won't be used for the flavours of the product, because, again, that name would be appealing to children.

With respect to the adult population, we want to make sure they have access to the flavours. But at the same time, we need to make sure we strike a balance, that we allow it for adult consumers while not making it appealing to our youth.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Once again, I'd like to thank the committee members for inviting me here this evening. I'm very pleased that you are studying this piece of legislation, as it's extremely important. Thank you so much for your hard work.

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to be here this evening to speak about Bill S-5. I want to begin by thanking the committee members for the work they have done to help shape this bill.

Your report entitled “Vaping: Towards a Regulatory Framework for E-cigarettes” highlights the necessity to protect young people from the dangers of nicotine addiction while giving adults smokers access to vaping products as a less harmful nicotine source. Bill S-5 responds to this report’s recommendations; your efforts served to clarify important provisions of the legislation.

Colleagues, the necessity to update existing tobacco legislation is quite obvious. As you know, smoking remains a very concerning public heath issue in Canada. Despite decades of progress, tobacco-related diseases kill 45 000 Canadians each year, or one person every 12 minutes. These statistics are very sobering and, as Minister of Health, I find them unacceptable. As such, our government is trying to reduce smoking rates in Canada from 25% in 2015 to less than 5 % by 2035.

As we work towards this goal, we need to recognize that tobacco use in Canada is changing. Vaping products such as e-cigarettes are becoming more popular. From a public health perspective, we believe this poses both challenges and opportunities.

Bill S-5 strikes the right balance between protecting Canadians and leveraging the potential benefits of vaping products. It also addresses an important need by establishing a new legislative framework for the regulation of these products. This bill is a key element of the government's broader tobacco control agenda, which includes taking further action to ban menthol in tobacco products, implementing plain packaging requirements for tobacco products, and, finally, modernizing Canada's approach to tobacco control.

Since it was introduced, Bill S-5 has been thoroughly examined and amended. Last spring, the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology embarked on a rigorous scrutiny of that legislation. It heard evidence from 22 witnesses representing 15 organizations, including consumer advocates, tobacco and vaping industry representatives, public health experts, academics, and government officials. Their invaluable comments clarified many recent amendments to the Bill under consideration today.

Many experts feel that vaping is a less harmful alternative to smoking. I have heard from Canadians who believe that vaping helped them quit smoking. Nevertheless, we must be cautious. There are risks to consider. Stakeholders have told us that they worry about how vaping products could affect young people. I want you to know that we share their concerns. We must ensure that the availability and prevalence of vaping products does not induce young people and non-smokers to develop nicotine addictions, which could lead them to start smoking.

That is why Bill S-5 would prohibit the sale of vaping products to youth under the age of 18, in line with the current minimum age of tobacco sales. Protecting youth from the dangers of nicotine addiction is a top priority of mine. I share some of the concerns expressed by the Quebec Coalition for Tobacco Control and others, especially regarding lifestyle promotion.

We do not allow lifestyle promotion of tobacco products, and we do not intend to allow it for cannabis products. To protect youth and non-smoking Canadians, I intend to support an amendment that would prohibit all lifestyle promotion of vaping products.

That said, I understand the potential of vaping products as a harm reduction tool. Marketing based solely on factual information will be allowed, with restrictions. For example, there are concerns that certain flavours could potentially make vaping products more appealing to young people. We recognize that some adults prefer flavoured vaping products, but we also know that certain flavours could attract youth to vaping, something that we absolutely want to avoid.

For this reason, Bill S-5 restricts the marketing and promotion of flavours such as candy, which would be appealing to youth. We have already taken significant action when it comes to flavoured tobacco by expanding the ban on menthol to cover 95% of all tobacco products. Bill S-5 was amended to go even further, to ban the use of menthol and clove in all tobacco products. We believe these measures will help protect Canadian youth from the serious, long-term health effects of nicotine addiction and tobacco use.

As I mentioned earlier, Bill S-5 has also advanced our objective of imposing plain and standardized packaging for tobacco products. Thanks to increasingly binding federal directives, the tobacco industry's capacity to attract new smokers, especially among young people, by promoting and advertising tobacco products has greatly decreased. In fact, packaging is one of the last restricted channels in which to do such advertising.

Research shows that promotion through packaging and product design is particularly effective with teenagers and young adults. Coloured packaging that includes logos, textures, and brand names can have a huge impact on young people at a stage of their life when they develop brand loyalty and adopt a smoker’s behaviour.

Conversely, plain packaging was shown to reduce access to tobacco products, especially by young people. Ninety percent of daily adult smokers over the age of 25 smoked their first cigarette before the age of 18. That is why tobacco-control leaders around the world focus on the plain and standardized packaging of tobacco products.

I think that we can all agree that tobacco companies should not be allowed to use packaging to make a harmful product more attractive. It is still important to adopt Bill S-5 in order for Canada to also implement those important and effective tobacco control measures.

In conclusion, Bill S-5 is a well-researched and balanced piece of legislation. It aims to protect young Canadians from developing nicotine addiction and from using tobacco. At the same time, it would allow adults to legally access vaping products as a less harmful alternative to tobacco. In addition, this legislation supports our government's efforts to implement plain and standardized packaging of tobacco products.

Bill S-5 reflects the considered opinions of many stakeholders, including public health experts, industry representatives, consumer advocates, and academics. The results of this strong piece of legislation will allow us to regulate the growing market for vaping products and advance the tobacco control agenda.

Thank you so much for your attention here this evening. I'd be absolutely pleased to take your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

We'll call our meeting to order. This is meeting number 91. We're here to talk about Bill S-5, an act to amend the Tobacco Act and the Non-smokers’ Health Act.

We certainly welcome the Honourable Ginette Petitpas Taylor, the Minister of Health. As additional witnesses, we have Simon Kennedy, Deputy Minister; James Van Loon, Director General, Tobacco Control Directorate; and, Denis Choinière, Director, Tobacco Products Regulatory Office.

We have a short time with the minister and I want to try to make sure that everybody gets their opportunity to ask a question, so I am going to hold everybody to the time limit, which I usually don't do. I'm going to hold everyone to the time limit for answers and questions. Mr. McKinnon and Dr. Eyolfson have agreed to limit their seven-minute times to five minutes so that Mr. Ayoub can have four minutes at the end.

First of all, we have opening statements.

Fire away, Minister. You have 10 minutes.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Thank you for that.

This is to any of the witnesses. The Canadian Cancer Society suggested four changes to Bill S-5 dealing with how vaping products are being advertised. They suggested that vaping products be limited to advertising or brand preference only; that vaping-product lifestyle advertising in bars and in publications be banned, as it is with tobacco; that restrictions on the location of permitted incentive promotions be restricted; and that restrictions on the locations of vaping product advertising be greatly strengthened to really match the provisions in the Tobacco Act.

Does anybody have any comments on those? Do any of you have any strong feelings about the vaping industry and the advertising of its products and whether Bill S-5 should go further than it does now?

Akehil, Maxime, or Anabel.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

I guess it does go to credibility to say that you believe you should stop selling cigarettes but you're going to keep doing it because you need to. I think it undermines credibility, but I'll leave that for now.

One of the concerns that one of our earlier panellists had was that the regulatory framework around vaping that we're putting into Bill S-5 will basically mean that the tobacco industry will invade that market and take it over.

Do you see vaping as a growth market for you?

[Anabel Bergeron]

The Freeze the Industry movement supports Bill S-5 because it would provide for standardized, plain packaging. Packaging is often designed to be stylish. Young adults must be aware of the secondary effects and the consequences of smoking. We have to remember that this age group is very vulnerable to stress and peer pressure. Young people are more vulnerable and more likely to start smoking. In our opinion, if health-related advertising were more influential and the seductive aspect of packaging were eliminated, making it standardized and plain, that would prevent people from starting to smoke.

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Let me summarize Bill S-5.

The Tobacco Act will become the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act. It will include provisions to protect young people from nicotine addiction and tobacco use. It will also give adults access to alternatives to vaping products that could be less harmful. I repeat, an alternative to tobacco use that could be less harmful. Moreover, it will protect the health and safety of Canadians in a variety of ways.

On one side of the table, they are saying they are concerned about the health of Canadians and young people; on the other side, they are talking business. I am concerned. The industry is talking out of both sides of its mouth. They say they are going to top the tobacco industry, but there is obviously a huge credibility problem there.

I need proof for you to convince me, Mr. Luongo, that you want to stop the tobacco industry. I would like to know how much money you are investing in closing your business. I do not think you are making any such investments right now. You should really be investing in addiction treatment or clinics. We are talking about nicotine today, but we could be talking about drug addiction in general.

For your part, our friends from the client service industry, especially convenience stores, you are caught in the middle. You do an excellent job of checking identification for resale, but at the same time you do not want to tell us what financial pressure the industry is placing on your association. I find that troubling because it calls into question your credibility. You should work on that to win my trust. For us as MPs and politicians, credibility and the code of ethics are what matter the most. We are judged and have no leeway, whereas you have a lot.

I would like to return to our young volunteers who have few resources, but who are concerned about public health, as the government is.

What do you like about Bill S-5? What changes would you like to see to improve the health of Canadians, especially youth, and to prevent them from starting to smoke in the future and thereby damage their health?

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

I just want to reiterate what I said this morning. When we look at 100,000 new daily smokers a year in Canada, 82% of new smokers in Canada are 18 years or under. Our problem right now, I believe, is stopping people from starting to get addicted to nicotine, from starting to take up smoking.

I support anything in Bill S-5 that continues.... Putting stronger language on the vaping side to make sure the same restrictions on vaping advertising are in place for tobacco, and that they match, I think, is a really important thing for Bill S-5 to be doing.

I just want to move over to Mr. Johnson regarding his testimony.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

No, but that was the question. You agree that they should. Yet this bill, Bill S-5, would not allow any products that are safer, that are determined to be safer, that are logically safer, to advertise that fact. Anyone who is wanting to quit can't be told about the alternatives unless Health Canada does so.

[Prof. Sinclair Davidson]

Thank you so much for inviting me to speak.

I'm a professor of economics at an Australian public university. I'm also associated with some free market think tanks, the Institute of Public Affairs and the Australian Taxpayers' Alliance.

As part of my overall research during my career, I have looked at various government policies, ranging from things such as insider trading, native title, and petrol pricing, and all sorts things along those lines. One of the public policies I have looked at is the plain-packaging policy that was introduced in Australia in December 2012.

I think we can all agree that smoking kills and that the rate of smoking in our society is probably a lot higher than what is socially desirable. The real question is what we ought to do about the fact that people choose to smoke. What I'm going to argue today is that if the Canadian government wishes to lower smoking rates they need to do the hard policy work on issues such as excise pricing, public education and information, and the provisional substitutes to smoking. Particularly, my argument is you should focus on actual results, not virtue signalling, and you should stay away from utopian public policy-making. The idea under utopian public policy-making is that there are free lunches, that people would be different, and that things could change for the better if only we all tried and worked harder.

It turns out that the Australian policy of plain-packaging failed. You don't have to believe me on this point. If we have a look at the latest Australian national drug strategy survey results, the decline in smoking prevalence in Australia stalled after the introduction of the plain-packaging policies. The government waste-water intelligence survey found that the amount of nicotine in Australian waste water actually increased during that time. The size of the contraband market has increased dramatically over time. The bottom line is that a policy experiment was attempted. The notion that by taking away the branding of packets you could emphasize the graphic health warnings was an experiment that was probably well worth trying. The Australian government did this experiment. They conducted a tracking survey to see how it would work. The fact of the matter is that the experiment failed. It turns out that taking away branding adds costs to the economy, which previous speakers have spoken about, but does not actually reduce the prevalence and instances of smoking. In fact, today in Australia there are more people smoking than there were five years ago when they introduced the policy.

What some of my colleagues and I have done is have a look at the government's own survey results, taking their own data and using their own techniques. What we found is that the graphic health warnings, as a form of public education, do have an effect on reducing smoking. What we also found, however, is that the size of that effect actually declined after the introduction of plain packaging. Graphic health warnings in Australia were introduced in 2006. You can see clearly that they do have an impact on people's smoking behaviour, but that taking away the branding, the notion that people would be more aware of the graphic health warnings if we took away the branding, did not work. There is no evidence, even in the government's own data, to suggest that a lack of branding reduces smoking. The other thing is, when you have a look at the packets themselves, the government's own research found that the appeal variables of the packets did not really have a big impact on the intention to quit and quitting behaviour.

Yes, it was probably a good idea that should have been tried. I can't say that it has succeeded, but more importantly, given that it can be very difficult for a government not to go ahead and do something along these lines, I would like to make some recommendations. First, if the Canadian government does go ahead with the S-5 bill, it should introduce a sunset clause so that after a period of five or ten years, say, the legislation could be reviewed and renewed if it has been successful. Second, a formal tracking study should be commissioned to measure the success or failure of the policy, and this tracking study should include a full assessment of the health, economic, and social costs associated with the policy, especially the impact on small business, on convenient stores, and on insurance costs, because we know crime will increase. Third, the tracking study should be conducted in an open and transparent manner by people who are not intimately associated with the policy themselves. Fourth, formal and transparent cost-benefit analysis should be conducted by credible external individuals. Fifth, all of this data should be made available on the Health Canada website for external verification and analysis.

I'd be happy to answer questions.

Thank you very much.

[Maxime Le, Volunteer, Freeze the Industry]

Back when I was in high school there was a smokers' pit outside every morning, at lunch, and after class. Nowadays when I'm not busy studying or conducting research on population health, serving as a patient adviser to the Ottawa Hospital, or advocating for tobacco endgame measures with Freeze the Industry, I take my little brother to this very same school and see that without fail the smokers' pit endures. Masked behind plumes of cigarette smoke, I can see some new faces from back when I was just a youth, but nonetheless the fact remains that it is the young, the vulnerable, and those who just want to fit in that populate this pocket of poison. I asked my little brother if he knew who they were, and his answer was, “It's all the cool kids who go there.”

When I was younger, my mother smoked. Fortunately, she quit, but I still had secondhand smoke from tobacco products in my lungs at times. She got hooked on cigarettes because of her environment and living situation, but it was not her fault since everyone around her smoked. It was considered normal; everyone smoked.

Through my studies, I have learned that, for various reasons, francophones have poorer health than other non-marginalized communities. This is easier to understand considering that 35% of francophones in Canada are smokers.

Young people can be affected by tobacco in many ways—not just by smoking it and poisoning their body, but also by being robbed of the lives of the loved ones they care about. This summer I was in an accident and required surgery. When I was transferred to my overnight bed, a fellow patient who required surgery as well became my roommate. When prepping the patient for anaesthesia, one of the staff members asked whether or not the individual smoked. The answer was yes, and because of this the staff member said that smoking could complicate the procedure. The little girl who was there started to cry and become worried. Can you imagine how she would have felt if her parent died because of that?

For me, advocating for and supporting Bill S-5 with Freeze the Industry means saving my little brother from the influence of tobacco packaging.

The coming into force of Bill S-5 will help people of my generation be healthier parents and have healthier children, while reducing the health inequalities in marginalized communities.

It's about making sure the air we breathe is a little cleaner for everyone, but also for young people in particular who are tired of having seconds, minutes, or years of their lives taken away by tobacco-related death.

Freeze the Industry allows me to be this advocate and to be the role model I want my brother to have. We urge this committee to take our perspective seriously and to follow through with our recommendations to implement plain and standardized packaging so that every Canadian from sea to sea to sea is happier, more productive, and can lead a healthier life.

We thank you for your time today and this opportunity, and we look forward to our discussions later on.

[Anabel Bergeron, Volunteer, Freeze the Industry]

Thank you.

I come here wearing many hats. I am a science student, a volunteer, a sister, a daughter, and a community leader. As a master's student conducting research on innovative cancer therapies here in the nation's capital, I have come to appreciate the repercussions of tobacco products on our economy, health care, and families. As you perhaps already know, treatments of tobacco-related conditions cost Canadians an estimated $6.5 billion in direct health care costs and tobacco-related conditions kill 100 Canadians every day. Smoking remains the foremost cause of premature death, and we must act.

I can testify first-hand that research innovates at a rapid rate, and progress in the field of medicine has significantly improved the prognosis of various diseases and continues to improve the quality of life of many patients. However, we must also acknowledge the power of education and prevention. Plain and standardized packaging elevates the impact of health warnings and prevents the use of deceiving designs.

As a volunteer in my community, I know youth have opinions on public heath issues, and they deserve to have their voices heard. As an ambassador with Freeze the Industry, I have witnessed the support of younger generations for plain and standardized packaging. Last November, approximately 100 youths and young adults expressed their support for plain and standardized packaging at our Freeze the Industry “Make 'Em Plain” rally on the Hill.

We understand the dangers of smoking and recognize that the tobacco industry employs various strategies to deceive. We know that plain and standardized packaging will spread this knowledge by highlighting the health warnings, and will prevent new smokers from falling into the tobacco industry's manipulative traps.

It is with these many hats on today that I support the proposed amendments to Bill S-5 for standardized, plain packaging.

I am hopeful that, together, we will be able to provide for a better future for current and future generations of Canadians.

[Akehil Johnson, Volunteer, Freeze the Industry]

Imagine if an airplane manufacturer sold airplanes that routinely fell out of the sky and killed 45,000 people per year. Surely that would not be normal. There would be an outcry and people would demand that steps be taken to protect the public. That would be normal.

That said, good afternoon, Mr. Chair and committee members.

We are here together to talk about Bill S-5, the issue of plain and standardized packaging, and to introduce our group called Freeze the Industry.

That quote I read is one from my first Unfiltered Facts meeting. Unfiltered Facts is youth advocacy, anti-industry group in Hamilton, Ontario. I thought about it long and hard. This was a self-evident truth. I thought to myself this was crazy, because tobacco is the only product that, when used as intended, kills over half its users. It seemed to me that nobody cared that smoking kills or tobacco usage kills. We hear it all the time and we just brush it off. I couldn't just sit by while this was happening. I'm also a Seventh-day Adventist. Our church believes that good health is vital to good living. We must do all we can to ensure that we live the best and healthiest lives.

Thus, in that singular moment, I became passionate and energized. I was ready to advocate in my school, in my church, in my communities, in Ontario, across Canada, in North America, and in the world that the industry targets youth to be replacement customers. No longer could “Smoking kills” work. I had to get the message out there to resist big tobacco, revolt against its manipulative tactics, and unite in solidarity that we would never use its products, and advocate to other youth about this shady industry. That's how I became an advocate, and it has been nothing short of a powerful journey.

I've been able to witness first-hand how youth advocacy has helped shape and change society, whether it was in Hamilton where we informed and gained 5,000 petitions in support of smoke-free movies, or helped lower the smoking rate in high school to 6%. However, that's not all. Throughout my volunteering and time spent at Unfiltered Facts, I learned about a provincial-wide network of youth and young adults who were committed voluntarily to fighting the industry in Ontario. Thus I got involved with this network known as Freeze the Industry.

It was through Freeze the Industry that I saw youth become informed and empowered. I saw youth take an interest in the Canadian political and democratic process. I've had the joy of being a youth advocate and seeing youth advocacy result in laws passed and new policies implemented. Some of these include power walls; the banning of flavouring in tobacco; the regulation of electronic cigarettes; the banning of smoking in parks and on patios in Ontario; the divestment from big tobacco by the University of Toronto; regulations on hookah and shisha use; and recently McMaster University, a university in Hamilton, going tobacco-free.

I've seen so much accomplished, but I know there's a lot more to get done, whether it's tighter regulations on flavours in tobacco, a moratorium on new products, or the implementation of plain and standardized packaging, which is why we are here today.

The fact remains that cigarette packaging is a mini-billboard. It's flashy, it's bright, it's colourful and attractive. We want people to understand that items that look friendly should not be deadly to your health. Friendly should not be deadly. You would not advertise rat poison or bleach the same way you advertise sugar or apple juice.

Therefore, in addition to countless other youth from across Ontario and across this nation, we support the passage of this legislation and will continue to advocate in favour of it, and we will strive to inform the public of the importance and necessity of this legislation.

Thank you.

[Anne Kothawala, President, Convenience Distributors, Canadian Convenience Stores Association]

Thanks, Satinder.

Without adequate resources to deal with contraband tobacco, and without adequate time to prepare for the consequences of plain packaging, already stretched small businesses will take a hit once again. A poll of our retailers, which has been shared with Health Canada, found that over 88% of staff use brand logos to differentiate between tobacco products; 97% of retailers believe that they would need to increase staff training to ensure proper inventory control, stock management, and customer service if plain-packaging restrictions are imposed in Canada. Our stores and distributors are not asking for any compensation to assist with this transition, but we are asking for time to deal with what we know the fallout will be.

While it's not in the mandate of this committee to recommend, we believe the government should address the issue of contraband tobacco before moving ahead with Bill S-5. The Senate social affairs committee noted in its report that more should be done to fight the black market. Health Canada is contemplating studying the illegal market in its renewed tobacco control strategy, and we support that effort.

We need action. Illegal tobacco is unregulated, untested, and untaxed. Many have zero per cent health warnings. The existence of this significant market undercuts every single one of the government's tobacco control measures and goes against the government's stated rationale for plain packaging. Providing law enforcement with greater resources specifically allocated to eliminating contraband tobacco is one option. Funding a regular study to evaluate the state of contraband tobacco and regulatory impacts on illegal tobacco usage rates is another. It is worth noting that this is not something the Government of Canada currently tracks.

To support this committee in its ability to recommend amendments to the proposed legislation, we offer the following recommendations.

First, to help mitigate the impacts of plain packaging on our small businesses, allow for some type of visual differentiation on packages, perhaps on the cellophane overwrap, which has the added benefit of being removed as soon as the package is opened. This would help to distinguish legal from illegal products, particularly for law enforcement. The RCMP have raised concerns about contraband tobacco, particularly the links to organized crime. In a recent massive seizure of drugs, weapons, and contraband, their press release stated that the investigation demonstrated “the strong ties between contraband tobacco and the organized crime community.”

From a distributor perspective, this is crucial when it comes to shipments of cartons of cigarettes. Very rarely are cartons purchased in stores, as you can well appreciate because of the cost, but our distributors use the visual differentiation to pick and fill customer orders. We understand that the U.K. plain-packaging legislation focused specifically on products destined for retail, rather than on shipments. We believe Bill S-5 should include that same provision.

The committee may also want to consider extending the same logic to individual cigarettes. Some differentiation would likely assist law enforcement in telling legal and illegal products apart.

Our second recommendation would recognize that many of our retailers and distributors are small businesses that are already burdened by excessive red tape and regulation. Not allowing for a reasonable transition period for our stores and their distributors will hurt our already struggling channel. Should this legislation proceed, we implore you to consider amending Bill S-5 to include a separate adjustment and sell-through period for retailers and distributors, of between 12 and 18 months.

Our third and final recommendation deals with vaping. We support the government one hundred per cent in finally regulating this product. We find it extraordinarily unfair that our stores and distributors have followed Health Canada's directive to refrain from selling vape products with nicotine, while illegal vape shops have been allowed to pop up on street corners in virtually every community.

With growing acknowledgement of the benefits of vape products as an alternative to traditional cigarettes, we ask this committee to create a level playing field by allowing for limited, substantiated communication by convenience retailers about alternative nicotine-containing products, including electronic cigarettes and heated tobacco products.

We thank you very much for the opportunity to present today, and we would be happy to answer any questions you might have.

[Satinder Chera, President, Canadian Convenience Stores Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Satinder Chera, and I am the president of the Canadian Convenience Stores Association.

Our association is proud to represent 27,000 small business owners across Canada who serve 10 million customers each and every day. As you will note from the materials in your kits, our channel provides employment opportunities for over 234,000 Canadians and collects over $22 billion in taxes for all levels of government. Our stores ensure that Canadians have access to necessities and basic groceries wherever they live, and a third of them serve rural and remote regions of the country. In our vast country it is our distributors who provide this critical link of getting those necessities to our stores, which is why I am joined by Anne Kothawala, who represents that part of our industry.

Our industry is much more than our contribution to the economy. We support local sports teams and charities. Last year we held our first ever national Convenience Store Day, during which politicians and community leaders worked a shift in our stores and helped us to raise over $80,000 for charity. Our channel is constantly changing and adapting. You can buy food-service items like samosas and healthier snack options such as energy bars. Twenty years ago newspapers were a significant part of our sales; today they are not.

Tobacco sales have also declined, just as the number of Canadians who smoke has declined. This is a good thing; however, those sales have moved to the illegal market. Across Ontario, one in every three cigarettes sold is illegal, and it's as high as 60% in some markets throughout the province. Please find more information regarding contraband in your kits.

Just so we are very clear, we're not here to defend the tobacco industry. After all, tobacco is a cause of serious diseases. That said, so long as Canadians choose to smoke this legal product, our retailers continue to represent the most responsible avenue for them to buy tobacco products. We are the most responsible safeguard to keep tobacco products out of the hands of children. It is in this context that we work with the tobacco companies, along with confectionery, snack, and beverage manufacturers, who are all non-voting members of our association.

My colleague and I are both parents. As any parent, we don't want our kids, or any kids, to get their hands on tobacco products. In fact, retailers play an important role in keeping these products out of the hands of youth to begin with through display bans and with identification checks through our We Expect ID program that is included in your kits. Convenience retailers are part of the solution to preventing kids from smoking, not in opposition to it.

We are here today to raise the concerns of our members about the impact that the proposed plain-packaging legislation will have on our stores. We fear that despite the intent of the legislation, efforts to reduce tobacco consumption will be wasted and, ultimately, worsened by this bill. We will also talk about the vaping side of Bill S-5, where we fully support the government's finally stepping in to regulate this promising development for consumer choice.

Our channel has proven to be the best at age testing when measured against the Beer Store or the government-owned LCBO in Ontario. According to data from Smoke-Free Ontario, public health units have conducted over 20,000 underage mystery shops, with a pass rate of 96% by convenience stores in Ontario.

Committee members may be asking why, if 75% of the package is already covered by warning labels, it would matter if the remaining 25% were covered too? There are three reasons.

First, as with any product, branded packaging gives consumers assurances of quality and reliability and helps them distinguish one product from another. Standardizing cigarette packaging will make it much more difficult to differentiate legal from non-legal products. Moreover, Bill S-5 allows for the standardization of the cigarettes themselves. Forcing legal products to look like their already-standardized illegal counterparts will only further encourage consumers to make their purchasing decisions on price alone. The cheapest products will always come from the black market, free from any tax or ID check.

Second, we already compete with an illicit market that is double the global average. With plain packaging, we can expect to see counterfeiting become a bigger problem than it already is.

Third, because of the black market, law-abiding convenience stores lose not only the tobacco sales, but also the purchases that go along with them—milk, bread, lottery tickets. Governments lose tax revenue, and no one is there to prevent children from buying illegal tobacco.

We know that committee members have heard a lot about the black market and contraband lately, having just studied Bill C-45. Many witnesses have remarked on the importance of addressing the black market when it comes to cannabis, and several have pointed to branding to visually separate these products and provide consumers basic information about them as well as a quality guarantee.

Our members cannot understand why, when the government is trying to curb black market cannabis, it chooses to proceed with plain packaging for tobacco, which will be a boon to the already thriving black market. If the shared problem between tobacco and cannabis is the black market, why are we treating these products so differently?

This is compounded by stories from retailers in other countries where they have adopted plain packaging. Our Australian retail counterparts have struggled with inventory control, staff training, and customer transactions without any of the intended benefits. Contraband rates increased by 20% in that country after plain packaging was introduced. More recently, the Australian and French governments have both stated that plain packaging did not have the desired impact on smoking rates. As you can imagine, our retailers and distributors hear these stories and are naturally questioning whether we should expect to see any different outcome for plain packaging if implemented here in Canada.

I'll now turn it over to my colleague to conclude our remarks.

[Peter Luongo, Managing Director, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc.]

Absolutely.

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, thank you for inviting me here to speak with you today.

I'm Peter Luongo, the managing director of Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., a fully owned subsidiary of Philip Morris International. I'm here to talk with you today about our vision for the industry, how that vision aligns with our shared goal of reducing smoking rates in Canada, and the implications of Bill S-5 for that objective.

First, our vision for the industry or goal, put simply, is to stop selling cigarettes. We can do this in a way that makes sense for us as a business and for society as a whole by switching existing adult smokers to alternative, smoke-free products that significantly reduce their exposure to the chemicals in cigarette smoke that are linked to disease. You may be thinking, if you want to stop selling cigarettes, why not simply stop? However, if we were to simply do that today, every single adult smoker in Canada who smokes our brands would most likely switch to another brand of one of our competitors. This would not serve the long-term goal of eliminating smoking. However, we believe that by introducing new, reduced risk products and by educating adult smokers on the benefits of switching, we can reach a point where we can envision a phase-out of cigarettes. We know this is a massive undertaking and will require time and support from the government and other stakeholders, but it is a goal we should all share.

You may also be thinking, why now? What has changed? Put simply, it's technology. For more than a decade PMI has been developing a series of smoke-free alternatives, products that are designed to replace cigarettes for adult smokers who are not seeking to quit tobacco altogether. As an industry, we finally have products that both satisfy adult smokers and also significantly reduce their exposure to chemicals. This is based on the simple fact that nicotine, while addictive and not risk-free, is not the primary cause of smoking-related diseases but it is ultimately a large part of what smokers are seeking from cigarettes.

As the old quote goes that was mentioned earlier today, “People smoke for the nicotine but they die from the tar.” It is the burning process, the combustion that occurs when tobacco is lit on fire that creates this tar, not the mere presence of nicotine. All of the alternative products we are looking to introduce have several things in common. They all produce an aerosol vapour, and they all contain nicotine to address smoker preferences, but they also all eliminate combustion. By eliminating combustion, we dramatically reduce users' exposure to these harmful chemicals if they fully switch to these products. We know from the millions of smokers in other countries who have already switched that we are talking about reality, not theory.

I'll give you a bit of background to what we are doing today in Canada with one of our alternative, smoke-free products called IQOS. It is an electronic device that heats specially manufactured tobacco sticks to release an aerosol vapour. The vapour contains nicotine and is similar to the vapour produced by an electronic cigarette. When compared to a reference cigarette smoke, the aerosol vapour produced by IQOS contains, on average, 90% fewer harmful and potentially harmful constituents linked to smoking-related diseases. Looking specifically at the 14 carcinogens identified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, we see the reduction is greater than 95% on average. Recently, an advisory committee to the Food and Drug Administration in the United States concluded that switching completely to IQOS can reduce smokers' exposure to harmful smoke compounds by a vote of eight to one.

To be clear, we are not saying that smoke-free alternatives are risk-free. They are not for non-smokers, they are not for youth, and they are not for people who smoke today and who want to quit tobacco and nicotine altogether. Smoke-free alternatives, such as IQOS, are for adult smokers who will otherwise continue to smoke without a satisfactory alternative. With over four million adult smokers in Canada today, it is imperative that we provide such alternatives.

If IQOS is legally available today in Canada, you may be wondering what the problem with Bill S-5 is. To start, I think we can agree that for someone to switch to a product, they need to know that it exists and how it compares to cigarettes. However, if Bill S-5 is passed in its current form, it will be illegal for me to share with Canadian adult smokers everything I have told you so far about how IQOS compares with cigarettes. Specifically, clause 27 of Bill S-5 prohibits anyone from making comparisons between any two tobacco products or their emissions. Because the IQOS unit heats tobacco, it would be considered a tobacco product. As a result, we would not be able to clearly explain the differences between IQOS and any other tobacco product, including cigarettes, regardless of what the scientific evidence showed to be true.

It is important for the committee to remember that this is not just about the product that we, as RBH, have on the market today. Our competitors in the industry have products that also contain tobacco and that operate under similar principles of avoiding combustion while still delivering nicotine. It is not only about products that have already been invented; it is recognizing that through additional research and development, these categories will continue to evolve to provide smokers with ever more and better alternatives in the future. As drafted, if there is a tobacco product that is proven to be of lower risk, there will be no way to explain that fact to consumers without further amending the legislation, which could be a very lengthy process. During this time, you would have millions of adult smokers in Canada making choices about their health without having all of the relevant information and access to the best available science.

Therefore, our recommendation is that clause 27 be amended to create regulatory power and to put tools in place to take advantage of the opportunity that we believe these products represent, and to have regulations reflect the latest available evidence. The Senate modified a similar section of this bill dealing with vaping products so that, through regulations, authorized statements could be created by Health Canada that strike a balance between providing adult smokers with the information they require to make informed choices while at the same time preventing them from being given a misleading impression. A similar change to the tobacco section of Bill S-5, giving Health Canada the power to create tailored regulations going forward, is a reasonable and balanced step for this committee to take.

Now, you don't have to believe everything I've said today. You don't even have to believe that IQOS is a better choice than smoking. You only have to believe that it is possible for a tobacco product to exist that has lower risks than cigarettes, and, if it is possible, I think we should all be able to agree that adult smokers in Canada have a right to that information and that the law should provide flexibility for regulations to reflect that fact.

Before I conclude, it's also important to recognize that given the ongoing evolution of these categories, we will continue to need to study and update our knowledge of these new alternatives. Our second recommendation for this committee is that in your report on Bill S-5, you recommend that the Government of Canada, in the upcoming federal tobacco control strategy, commit to funding research into smoke-free alternatives, including heated tobacco products and electronic cigarettes, to help inform future policy discussions with evidence that is entirely impartial. Doing so will provide legislators and regulators with substantiated third-party information regarding the science behind smoke-free alternatives, and better enable a more fulsome dialogue about the potential of harm reduction in tobacco to achieve the goal of “5% by '35”, a goal we all share.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Welcome to meeting number 90 of the Standing Committee on Health.

We're studying Bill S-5, an act to amend the Tobacco Act and the Non-Smokers' Health Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Today, on behalf of Rothmans, Benson & Hedges, we have Peter Luongo and Mike Klander. On behalf of the Canadian Convenience Stores Associations, we have Satinder Chera and Anne Kothawala. From Freeze the Industry, we have Anabel Bergeron, Akehil Johnson, and Maxime Le.

As an individual, do we have Sinclair Davidson here?

[Lesley James]

There definitely is a concern, because there will be nicotine in these products once Bill S-5 is passed, and who is to know what will happen in terms of addiction from choosing to use either an e-cigarette or a tobacco product? From research that came out and was published by CMHA, we do know that youth who use e-cigarettes are more likely to be using tobacco products a year later.

[Neil Collishaw]

Regrettably, these are already on the market in Canada. We have no way of keeping recreational nicotine products off the market. In the United States they're currently under review in premarket approval, and much ink has been spilled in the United States in this premarket approval process. A scientific committee has recommended to the FDA that they not be allowed to make health claims. We'll see what happens.

In Canada what concerns me is even though all tobacco products are covered under the current Tobacco Act, there isn't a proper set of regulations for heat-not-burn products, and there is an opportunity to at least partially correct this situation with some further amendments to Bill S-5. I don't want to go into a lot of detail here since there isn't a lot of time, but I can show all of you some proposals that I have in that regard later on.

[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.

Tobacco and Vaping Products Act

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am speaking today in regard to Bill S-5, an act to amend the Tobacco Act and the Non-smokers’ Health Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts. We have heard today that everyone is committed to reducing the smoking of tobacco products, as it has been a proven health hazard. We support the regulation of vaping products, as well as other consumer products. However, some stakeholders have some legitimate concerns, and some things need to be looked at, so we support the bill going to committee to address these concerns.

I want to start by talking a bit about a conversation I had today. I have a 16-year-old, and I was having this conversation with her about smoking and marijuana around the schools, and so on. I asked her about vaping and what she thought about it. She told me she has an older friend who vapes, and he said she should not start, because if she started vaping, she would not want to stop. Coming from a 16-year-old and a young person who obviously is already addicted to it, it is good advice. We all have to consider the big picture. We all want to see less of these products used.

There are two parts to the bill. One part is on plain packaging and the rest is on vaping. The bill aims to build strong regulations and legislation that builds upon what our previous government has done. About 55 years ago, in 1963, Judy LaMarsh, Canada's minister of health, declared there is scientific evidence that cigarette smoking is a contributory cause of lung cancer and that it may also be associated with chronic bronchitis and coronary heart disease. It began half a century ago, addressing this public health problem of tobacco use in Canada, but also around the world. At that time, about 50% of Canadians smoked, and a lot has happened since then.

Personally, I am very proud to be part of a government where I served as parliamentary secretary to the minister of health. We made some gains in that regard. We tackled the issues of smoking rates throughout the introduction of legislation to encourage smoking in Canada to decline. Today, approximately 13% of Canadians are smokers. Smoking is now at an all-time low, with most progress shown among our youth. Smoking rates of males aged 15 to 17 dropped from 19% to 10%, and those 18 to 19 years of age dropped from 33% to 20%, according to Stats Can statistics. Smoking rates of females aged 15 to 17 dropped from 22% to 9%, and those 18 to 19 years of age dropped from 34% to 19%. It is going in the right direction.

However, over the last few years e-cigarettes and vapes have been emerging on to the Canadian market, and they create a new set of challenges for Canadian lawmakers and health officials.

E-cigarettes were developed in 2003, apparently first in China. They were introduced in the U.S. in 2007. These e-cigarettes are part of a category of products called “electronic nicotine delivery systems”. The e-cigarette is a battery-powered device designed to look and feel like a traditional cigarette, and it is meant to deliver inhaled doses of a nicotine-containing aerosol to users. It does this by heating a solution commonly referred to as an e-liquid.

The vaping industry has been keen to share figures regarding the use of vapes among Canadians, and I would like to summarize a few of those stats. In Canada, in 2015, one in four Canadian youth aged 15 to 19 years reported having tried an e-cigarette, and one in three young adults between the ages of 20 to 24 had tried it.

Some of the research out there suggests that e-cigarettes are safer than combustible tobacco cigarettes, and that makes sense. In 2016, a total of 24 studies, including three randomized clinical trials, were reviewed. Two of the trials, with a total of 662 participants, so a good study, showed that people using e-cigarettes with nicotine were more likely to stop smoking for at least six months compared to those who received placebo e-cigarettes without nicotine. We are seeing some evidence that these may have a use, particularly for people who are trying to quit smoking.

Some of the research suggests that e-cigarettes are less harmful as they reduce exposure to combustible tobacco. For example, cardiovascular risks associated with smoke are dose-dependent. To reduce the number of cigarettes smoked from a pack a day to 10 cigarettes a day would reduce the risk. There is something to be said perhaps about vaping and e-cigarettes that have less of these combustibles.

Second-hand exposure to vapour from e-cigarettes has been tested, and to some extent have been found to be less toxic than cigarette smoke, as it does not contain carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds.

It is important to note that because nicotine is a drug, it is subject to the requirements of the Food and Drugs Act and must be authorized by Health Canada prior to sale based on the evidence of safety and efficacy, things along these lines. To be clear, and people do not realize this right now, no vaping product has been authorized to date in Canada, and all nicotine-containing vaping products are being sold illegally. People do not understand that. That is why this debate is so important today, and it is important that we move the bill forward.

Of importance is that the restrictions on access and sale of tobacco cigarettes to those under age 18 would also apply to vaping products. To be clear, these are still unregulated products, and the average Canadian may not know a lot about them.

I want to thank my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George, who I think is watching tonight, for an article he sent that calls for stronger vaping regulations. Here is a big shout-out to him to get better soon. We still do not know the long-term effects of these products, and we have to keep them out of the hands of our kids.

However, I have had the opportunity to witness a demonstration of the technology with people from the vaping industry in my riding of Oshawa. I watched these devices and the inhalable vapour. I had a conversation with them and I listened to them. Many vaping advocates champion vaping as an effective quitting mechanism for cigarettes. For some of these folks it works. They start with a certain nicotine percentage and eventually work their way down to lower amounts or nothing at all. A study on vaping done in the U.K. showed a 95% reduction in harm from vaping over regular tobacco products. This is something we have to keep in mind.

Another large aspect of the vaping industry is the flavours. This is going to be very controversial because this e-liquid can be made in almost any flavour, but are all these flavours safe? What do we know, and what do we not know?

We know that the vaping industry is totally unregulated and there are no government quality controls in place. In Canada, the majority of products on the market are regulated, so we have to move this forward. It is the sensible thing to do.

Another reason for regulating is the variety of products on the market. Many companies are creating new devices for sale in Canada, and e-cigarettes are no different. We are seeing new, emerging technologies from the tobacco industry aimed at reducing harm versus the traditional cigarette. These technologies are out there and they need to be properly regulated by the federal government.

These products are not the same as vapes. They heat tobacco without burning it to create a smoking sensation with less harmful methods of consumption. There has been some research to suggest that this is less harmful, with up to 75% harm reduction for these products. They could be viewed as positive trends in reducing harm and moving Canadians off smoking, but in order for this positive narrative to continue, we urge the government to regulate these things appropriately.

The second part of the bill is about plain packaging of cigarettes and the contraband and quality control issues that must be addressed. Let us review what we know about plain packaging in other countries.

There has been a lot of extrapolation about Australia. As a matter of fact, in 2012, Australia was the first country to legislate plain packaging, and in March of last year the World Health Organization released an executive summary, which said that Australia had witnessed a decline in smoking prevalence rates between 2010 and 2013. However, this decrease in Australia's national smoking rate had brought on an unintended increase in the import of contraband tobacco. As we are aware, Australia imports all of its tobacco, and the contraband part of it grew from 10% to 26%.

These things need to be addressed. According to a study by the Canadian Convenience Stores Association, 30% of cigarettes sold in my riding of Oshawa are contraband. As my colleague said earlier, there is a lack of markings on these cigarettes and it is hard for the consumer. This is where we have to focus on consumer protection. We have seen an increase in contraband cigarettes, and we have heard the stories about cigarettes being contaminated with animal waste, dirt, and harmful bacteria.

We have heard about consistency. The Liberal government is going to be regulating marijuana. Unfortunately, it is not going to be consistent and have the same protections in here. I look forward to moving this legislation to committee so that we can address some of these issues.

I think all of us here in the House can agree that we need to do more to protect our kids from these smoking products.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here today to speak about Bill S-5, an act to amend the Tobacco Act and the Non-smokers’ Health Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

For nearly 55 years, the Canadian government has taken a position on cigarette smoking and protecting the health of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. When mounting scientific evidence clearly and conclusively demonstrated that cigarette smoking was a contributing cause of lung cancer and coronary heart disease, so began a half century of addressing the public health problems of tobacco use here in Canada.

At that time, about half of Canadians smoked. Currently, there are two federal acts that address tobacco products and their use at the federal level: the Tobacco Act, administered by Health Canada since 1997, and the Non-smokers' Health Act, administered by Employment and Social Development Canada. More recently, in 2001, the federal tobacco control strategy was introduced in Canada. It focused on smoking prevention for children and youth, smoking cessation, and second-hand smoke prevention. In 2005, Canada became party to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

I am very proud of the Conservative Party's record on reducing tobacco smoking. When the Conservative government implemented measures in this area, the number of young people in Canada smoking tobacco was cut in half. Today, through the concerted efforts of government, public health agencies, national and local advocacy groups, and schools, the number of Canadians who smoke has been reduced to just 13%.

Bill S-5 aims to amend the Tobacco Act and the Non-smokers' Health Act by adding and regulating vaping products as a separate class. The bill goes a fair distance in addressing some very important public health questions, but there are some instances where I feel it does not go far enough. This is why I hope it gets closer examination at committee.

I think everyone here agrees that smoking is harmful. We want to reduce the number of people smoking and the harmful effects associated with it. We need to make sure these products are safe for Canadians. We also need to make sure we combat the crime involved in all of the things the bill addresses. We need to be concerned as well about the many economic impacts we might see as the bill is implemented. The vaping industry today is fully unregulated, and that is a problem if we are concerned about vaping products getting into the hands of children, and rightly so. I would like the industry to regulate it and I support this part of the bill. The recommendation to only make vaping products available to those over 18 is a very good idea.

With this legislation, we are faced with a question of how to regulate a new product on the market, the e-cigarette. In fact, there are conflicting opinions in Canada about what to do at this particular juncture: regulate, wait for more evidence, or ban the e-cigarette.

Since 2015, the U.S. Surgeon General has issued recommendations to legislate standards for the manufacturing, distribution, marketing, and sales of e-cigarettes. The U.S. Surgeon General concluded that e-cigarettes are a rapidly emerging and diversified market class to deliver nicotine and flavourings, and presently surpass conventional cigarette use among youth. Bill S-5 would ensure that all restrictions of access and sale of tobacco cigarettes to those under 18 years of age would also apply to vaping products. These include the ban and sale of all vaping products to youth under the age of 18 years, no vending machine sales, and age verification with postal delivery for online purchases.

In addition, flavour ingredients that appeal to youth are prohibited, such as dessert, cannabis, and soft drinks. Also, the manufacture, promotion, and sale of vaping products with ingredients that give the impression they have positive health effects are prohibited, such as probiotics, caffeine, and vitamins. However, as of yet, no standards for maximum levels of nicotine contained in the vaping liquid have been established. I would encourage the committee to explore this through witness testimony, and here is why.

The Canadian Student Tobacco, Alcohol and Drugs Survey of 2014-15 found that 65% of students thought there was a “great risk” of harm from smoking traditional, combustible cigarettes on a regular basis. The survey found that only 12% thought there was “great risk” of harm from smoking e-cigarettes. Almost one in four students thought there was “no risk” of harm from using them once in a while and, sadly, one in six students had no idea whatsoever. Clearly we have our work cut out for us in educating young Canadians, which is why we cannot ignore standards for nicotine use in e-cigarettes.

There are four questions to be considered when examining the scientific evidence on vaping and e-cigarette health and safety: as I have already mentioned, as a gateway for youth to tobacco use; as an aid in smoking cessation; the toxicity of the emissions in the inhaled vapour; and potential risks from second-hand smoke exposure.

One concern is that the e-cigarette will actually serve as a gateway to tobacco addiction for young Canadians. A recent review by the University of Victoria suggests that tobacco use in the U.S., Canada, and other countries is declining significantly among 12- to 19-year-olds as vapour device use is increasing, unfortunately.

While three small studies have been done on the use of e-cigarettes as an aid in getting smoking down to the levels where it reaches almost zero, strong evidence is now lacking on whether or not there are serious adverse effects associated with e-cigarette use in the short term. The long-term safety of these devices remains largely unknown. There are also serious concerns about the health effects associated with vapour device emissions. I am positive vapour devices do not deliver tar, and their emissions do not contain 61 out of the 79 cigarette toxins; however, a recent 2016 study in the journal Environmental Science & Technology identified more than 31 compounds generated with vaporizers, and stated many more have yet to be identified. Second-hand exposure to vapour from e-cigarettes has been tested to some extent and is found to be less toxic than cigarette smoke as it does not contain carbon monoxide or volatile organic compounds. However, the vapour does produce a measurable absorption of nicotine in bystanders, and how to measure that risk is not yet clear. All reviews of second-hand exposure have called for more testing to clarify the conflicting findings on the emissions of particulate matter, metals, and other substances.

As we all know, the government is intending to legalize marijuana in about 150 days. I find it interesting that as we are trying to modernize regulations about smoking, the government, even though it wants to reduce smoking, has added marijuana smoking to its must-do checklist. The Canadian Medical Association has come out with studies that show the harm to young people, as their brains are still developing. They see a 30% increase in schizophrenia, psychotic disorders, depression, anxiety, and addiction in young people who consume marijuana once a week. Both vaping marijuana and smoking marijuana are harmful. If we are talking about reducing overall harm, particularly to our young children, we need to make sure we do not incentivize young Canadians to use vaping products with marijuana. I urge the committee to examine this important matter and to bring amendments to this bill that would include marijuana.

Bill S-5 is a complex piece of legislation that also implements plain packaging for tobacco products. There are some inconsistences here that I believe need to be addressed at committee. There is inconsistency in the approach of packaging marijuana versus tobacco, for one. There are also concerns about quality control and how we would make sure to protect consumers from contraband versus the well-regulated and quality-controlled production of cigarettes.

In 2012, Australia was the first country to legislate plain packaging for cigarettes. The outcomes there were twofold. On the one hand, the number of Australians smoking slightly decreased; on the other, incidents of contraband cigarettes increased from 10% to 26%. In my home province of Ontario, it is estimated that 40% to 60% of cigarettes sold are contraband. It can also be bought all over the province. There are important consumer health considerations within the contraband cigarette market. There have been numerous complaints about the content of some of the contraband tobacco. We have heard stories about dirt, bugs, and animal manure being mixed in. From a quality control point of view, if a cigarette has absolutely no markings on it, we have no idea where the product came from. More than one in three cigarettes purchased in 2014 was an unregulated contraband product. If the aim of Bill S-5 is harm reduction and one instrument is plain packaging, I really think the committee needs to weigh plain packaging versus the health and safety risks of organized crime and tobacco cigarettes.

While no one would argue against the need to modernize these acts, we must form a view that weighs all intended and unintended consequences of Bill S-5.

I know that my time is up and I look forward to questions from my colleagues.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock.

I want to give a shout-out to the member for Cariboo—Prince George. He has had some very difficult health issues and may be watching today. This is an important issue for him too. I hope he is doing well and is back with us very quickly.

Bill S-5 has two objectives. One is to deal with the packaging of tobacco products, and we have just heard a presentation from the Liberal member on plain packaging. The other part of the objective of Bill S-5 is to regulate e-cigarettes and the vaping industry.

I want to begin by talking about plain packaging. I want to thank the Liberal member who just spoke for his work in this place, but what was shared and what has happened in Australia has been referenced a number of times by the member. I would encourage him and members of the health committee to approach this with an open mind.

Keeping tobacco products out of the hands of our children and young adults and seeing the use of tobacco products reduced even more I think is a goal of all of us. There is a very clear link between some catastrophic health problems that go along with the use of tobacco products. Whether they are inhaled through smoke, or chewed, they do bad things to the human body. There is no argument on that. The argument is on packaging.

I will not say which government gets the credit for this because as politicians we all want to get credit for good things that happen, but the facts are that we are at an all-time low of the use of tobacco products in Canada. That is a good thing. It probably was the former Conservative government that got it done, but I do not want to take the credit.

A moment ago there was discussion about the importance of enforcement. What enforcement body has helped us achieve that great goal of reduced use of tobacco products in Canada? It is stores right across Canada that ensure tobacco products are in a covered, locked, age restricted way so children do not get tobacco products from the stores. When they are covered and out of sight behind flap doors, customers do not see them. They have to be opened up and customers will request what they want. If they are an adult, they can have access to it. Children cannot have cigarettes or tobacco products because of our stores and merchants, which do a very good job. We have achieved this lowest in the use of tobacco products in Canadian history.

Having plain packaging is required in Bill S-5, which was authored from the Senate by an independent Liberal senator. I want to thank the senator for the work and for sending the bill to the House. The question on packaging is whether it will make a difference. Will it reduce tobacco use even more? We have heard about the Australia example.

Definitely the amount of legal tobacco products that have been sold in the period since 2012 has gone down. Therefore, there is a deduction that because the amount of sales of labelled tobacco products has gone down, the use has gone down.

In the KPMG study that the member referenced, at the same time, we have seen the change in the pattern of purchase. A number of young people have asked where they could get cheaper tobacco products when they went to the plain packaging. Also, the KPMG study showed that there has been a dramatic increase in contraband, illegal tobacco products. Therefore, the argument that there has been a reduction is really on very shaky ground. It may have gone down. I do not know. I know that the legal sales have gone down, but the illegal sales have gone up. This is why throughout the debate today often the question of contraband tobacco has come up, which I think is a very important part of the discussion.

If plain packaging does not make a difference in the actual use of the tobacco products, if that is the end result, the truth part that comes out in the study, then why would we do this? If it would make a difference, then, obviously, plain packaging has a strong argument to make. However, if it does not make a difference, why head in that direction?

I think most members will support Bill S-5 going to the health committee to do a study. However, for my Liberal colleagues across the way who are all excited about endorsing Bill S-5—and the previous member said that plain packaging was essential—I do not think that is going into this with an open, scientific mind. Minds are already made up, and I would caution against that. The witnesses called have to be not witnesses who are going to say what they want them to say, but esteemed people, such as scientists and statisticians, who will give us the information we need to make good decisions in the House. I encourage that.

At this point I will remain open to finding out the truth and the facts on whether this will make a difference. If it will, then we should support it. If it would not make a difference, and there could be an argument that it would make it worse, then we should not go in that direction.

The next issue that arises from Bill S-5 is vaping, e-cigarettes, which has been around for a number of years, but not that long. The argument in favour of e-cigarettes and vaping is that it is less damaging and less harmful to our health. Instead of inhaling a product that has been ignited, we would be breathing in products that have been vaporized. There are different contraptions, and I think that now, over the years, they are in generation five. Therefore, they are getting better and bigger. Actually, the bigger they get, the hotter the vaping, and more chemicals can be created that can be harmful to our health.

Sadly, in the metro Vancouver area where I live in beautiful Langley, we were saddened to hear on the news that there was a young 14-year-old boy from Delta, Kyle Losse, who had passed away. His family heard a noise in the washroom. They found Kyle dizzy, and he had fallen, and there was an e-cigarette vaporiser on the floor. They took him to the hospital, and I believe less than a week later he passed away. They believe he was vaping nicotine.

People can vape all kinds of products in these e-cigarettes. It can be nicotine, which is a drug, or things that taste wonderful. One can vape marijuana. The advantage for youth in vaping is that one does not have the bad breath smell that one does with smoking. It is very difficult for parents to know that a youth has been vaping marijuana products, because there is no odour. They would have to be a drug expert, like a DRE, training with the police.

We are living in a new world, with new challenges. Should vaping be regulated? Absolutely; I do not see a problem with that at all.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in support of Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Tobacco Act and the Non-smokers’ Health Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. This legislation would be a critical step for our government in delivering on our commitment to introduce plain and standardized packaging requirements for all tobacco products.

Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of premature death in Canada. It is considered to have a role in causing over 40 diseases and other serious health outcomes. Every year, 45,000 people die in Canada from cigarette smoking.

In my two decades as an emergency room physician, I lost count of the number of patients I saw who suffered from the effects of tobacco. I watched patients with chronic lung disease as they struggled for every breath. I called surgeons to amputate gangrenous limbs. I told families of heart attack victims that their loved ones had just died. I diagnosed advanced cancers in patients and informed them that they were going to die. In almost every one of these instances, I heard the same statement from patients, “I wish I had never started smoking.”

In Canada, tobacco use has been declining. However, despite decades of efforts, in 2015, 115,000 Canadians became daily smokers. Studies show that most tobacco use begins during adolescence. In fact, the vast majority of daily smokers began smoking by the age of 18. I can confidently say that no one wants their kids to smoke.

The government and its provincial and territorial partners have undertaken some key legislative and regulatory measures in their fight against tobacco use. These measures include restrictions on most forms of tobacco product promotion, especially those targeting young people; restrictions by provincial and territorial governments on the display of tobacco products at retail; bans on most flavours that contribute to making cigarettes, blunt wraps, and most cigars more attractive, in particular to youth; restrictions on smoking in public, including bans on indoor smoking and workplaces; the introduction of large, pictorial health warning messages on tobacco product packaging; and the sponsoring of prevention campaigns.

These measures have been effective, but additional measures are needed to further discourage youth and young adults from becoming consumers of tobacco products. Tobacco packaging is one of the few remaining channels available for the promotion of tobacco products. The design and appearance of packages and of tobacco products are extensively used to develop brand image and identity, to create positive associations and expectations for consumers, and to reduce the perception of risk and harm.

The tobacco industry's own research indicates that tobacco packaging, product design, and appearance can shape consumers' perceptions about the product. For example, packages with rounded or bevelled edges are seen as conveying stylishness, elegance, and class. Research also shows how tobacco packaging can impact the perception of risk and harm associated with the use of a tobacco product. For example, tobacco products with lighter colours on their packages have been associated with less harm and perceived lower strength.

Studies have shown that promotion through tobacco packages and products is particularly effective in adolescence and young adulthood, when brand loyalty and smoking behaviour is established. Young adult smokers associate cigarette brand names and package design with positive personal characteristics, social identity, and status. Notably, in 2012, the U.S. Surgeon General's report stated that the evidence reviewed “strongly suggests that tobacco companies have changed the packaging and design of their products to increase their appeal to adolescents and young adults.” This is unacceptable.

Our government is committed to protecting young people and others from inducements to use tobacco. This government is seeking to accomplish this by introducing plain and standardized packaging requirements for all tobacco products. One may wonder what we mean by plain and standardized packaging. Quite simply, it refers to packaging without any distinctive or attractive features. Packages, of any brand, are similar in appearance and the same ordinary colour.

Since 2010, the World Health Organization has been calling on parties to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control to consider introducing plain packaging measures. Canada is a party to that international convention. Australia was the first country to successfully implement plain packaging in 2012. The United Kingdom, Ireland, and France have also adopted plain packaging measures and these countries are in various stages of implementing those measures. In total, over 10 countries, including Canada, are taking steps toward standardizing tobacco packaging.

My colleagues may be asking themselves if plain and standardized packaging works. Independent research studies spanning more than two decades and multiple countries have shown that plain and standardized packaging requirements reduce the appeal of tobacco packages and the products they contain.

In 2016, Australia published the results of its post-implementation review of its plain packaging efforts. The review concluded that tobacco plain packaging is achieving its aim of improving public health in Australia, and that is expected to have substantial public health outcomes in the future. In fact, in Australia, since 2012 there has been a decrease in the prevalence of tobacco use, which has been in part attributed to the standardization of tobacco packaging. The expert analysis of the post-implementation period found the packaging changes, which included both plain packaging and graphic health warnings, resulted in an estimated 108,000 fewer smokers.

Cochrane, a global network of researchers, recently released a review of 51 studies that found there is a consistency of evidence from a variety of differently designed studies and from a range of diverse outcomes that shows plain and standardized packaging reduces the appeal of tobacco packages. These are the same conclusions as found in other comprehensive reviews.

It is clear that even a small change in initiation and cessation of tobacco use would be sufficient to produce public health benefits that outweigh the estimated costs of implementing plain packaging.

Bill S-5 is critical as it would provide the necessary authorities to implement plain and standardized packaging through future regulations. In particular, Bill S-5 would prohibit the promotion of tobacco products by means of the packaging, except as authorized by the act and regulations. It would also provide the necessary authority for future regulations to set out the details for plain packaging.

As a first step in the regulatory development process, our government launched public consultations last year, on World No Tobacco Day, on its proposal to implement plain and standardized packaging for tobacco products. Our government published a detailed consultation document online for 90 days. That document, entitled “Consultation on 'Plain and Standardized Packaging' for Tobacco Products”, highlighted a number of measures where public opinion and feedback were sought.

Over 58,000 responses were received. The overwhelming majority of responses were in favour of plain and standardized packaging. Specifically, the responses from non-governmental and public health organizations were resoundingly supportive of plain and standardized packaging, and included recommendations to strengthen the proposed regulatory measures. There was also a high level of support from the general public, with over 90% of participants in support of plain and standardized packaging. In contrast, comments received from the tobacco industry and retailers opposed the proposed measures. There is still a lot of work to be done, but our government is committed to moving as quickly as possible to implement plain packaging.

Should Bill S-5 receive royal assent, our government would proceed with the development of regulations. That regulatory proposal would go through the typical regulatory process, which would include another period of public consultations on the draft regulations. Our government believes it is important to continue to take decisive action to help protect young people and others from inducements to use tobacco products, and the consequent dependence on them. It is our government's firm belief that the measures in Bill S-5 are essential to further reduce the attractiveness of tobacco products for youth and young adults. Remember, tobacco is a deadly product that kills one in two long-term smokers.

With the support of the members in the House, all Canadians will reap the benefits of improved health outcomes thanks to a further decline in tobacco use. I trust that all members will agree and join us in supporting Bill S-5.

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Madam Speaker, as far as I know, marijuana is bad. It is all about a balancing act. If anybody wants to smoke or anybody wants to vape, that is fine but the industry has to be regulated. That is the only way to go.

Bill S-5 must go to the committee to clear up all the negative things in it.

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with the hon. member that Bill S-5 should go to committee, where the committee would listen to all the stakeholders. For 5% or 7% or 2% of people, it would make their lives much easier. We have to balance that with the other 95% of people who may oppose it or do not smoke these things. We know that at least 50% of Canadians do not smoke. They are not in favour of this bill. At the end of the day, this bill should go to committee, where we can listen to the experts and listen to stakeholders. Let all the opinions come to the table, and then we can decide on it.

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, years ago my family owned a convenience store. I am talking about close to 50 years back. In those days, the packages were fancy. They were displayed on the counter. They were displayed right behind us. They were all over the place. If members remember, at that time smoking cigarettes in the United States was the fashion. That was the design.

Times have changed. Most people understand that cigarettes cause cancer. As members know, the rate of smoking has been cut basically in half in this country. If you go to Shoppers Drug Mart, convenience stores, or any other place, cigarette packages are hidden in cabinets. I do not think this makes any difference. If there is no display, people know the name of the cigarette they want to smoke, and they ask for it. In my personal opinion, I do not think this would make any difference.

Bill S-5 should go to the committee, where the members will listen to stakeholders. Their opinions are bigger than mine. Regarding the packaging, I think it makes no difference, since all the packages are hidden in cabinets in the back.

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S-5, which would amend the Tobacco Act to add and regulate vaping products as a separate class of products and would align other existing acts to conform.

Bill S-5 is a complex piece of legislation. This omnibus bill brings up many issues for us to consider. It touches on implementing plain packaging for tobacco products. This legislation would cover both cigarettes and e-cigarettes. I believe that these issues should be studied at the health committee in order for us to get things right for all Canadians.

We can all agree that cigarette smoking is harmful. That is why I stand proudly today highlighting the record of the previous Conservative government, which implemented measures that resulted in the number of young people in Canada who smoke tobacco being cut in half. Because of the previous Conservative government's tobacco policies, smoking is now at an all-time low in Canada, with the greatest reduction shown among youth.

I want to share some figures. According to Statistics Canada data from 2001 to 2011, the smoking rate for males aged 15 to 17 dropped from 19% to 10%, and for those aged 18 to 19, it dropped from 33% to 20%. Further, the smoking rate for females aged 15 to 17 dropped from 22% to 9%. For those aged 18 to 19, it dropped from 24% to 19% in that same period. Smoking rates overall, under the previous Conservative government, fell to an all-time low of 13%.

While there have been many new studies conducted on tobacco and tobacco products, it is also important to bear history in mind.

I strongly believe in the health and safety of Canadians, and I must say that we do not know enough about this legislation. It must be studied at committee.

More than 50 years ago, then minister LaMarsh rose in this place and said, “There is scientific evidence that cigarette smoking is a contributory cause of lung cancer and that it may also be associated with chronic bronchitis and coronary heart disease.” At the time of the statement, about 50% of Canadians smoked, 61% of them men and 30% of them women. Smoking was normal and permitted virtually everywhere.

The public health problem of tobacco use in Canada and around the world has been addressed for over half a century. However, we are faced with a new question. In the last few years, a new product has come to the market, so we are tasked with how to regulate e-cigarettes, or vapes.

In Canada in 2015, one in four Canadian youth aged 15 to 19, and one in three young adults aged 20 to 24, reported ever having tried an e-cigarette. The U.S. surgeon general released a report in 2016 indicating that 25% of students in grades six to 12 had tried e-cigarettes. These are alarming statistics.

We need to ensure that our youth are aware that e-cigarettes are still harmful. Research and education are imperative. I am committed to reducing the smoking of tobacco products, as they are a proven health hazard, just as I am committed to advocating keeping dangerous drugs, such as marijuana, out of the hands of our children. I know that we all agree that Canadians' health and safety is something we all care deeply about.

I understand that a number of stakeholders have concerns about this legislation. For these reasons, I believe that Bill S-5 should go to committee to address their specific concerns. It is important that stakeholders from all sides of the argument have their concerns addressed at committee, that this bill is studied, and that we get this right for Canadians.

E-cigarettes are quite a recent invention, so there is much we still do not know. We need to be prepared to hear from experts. E-cigarettes that are being used today reflect significant technological advances that are constantly changing. I understand that they are expecting to surpass traditional cigarette sales within the next 10 years. While some studies suggest that e-cigarettes are popular for quitting smoking, we need to bear in mind that there are still health risks, especially when it comes to relaying the message to our children.

Developed in 2003 by a pharmacist in China, and first introduced into the U.S. in 2007, the e-cigarette is one in a category of products called “electronic nicotine delivery systems”. The e-cigarette, a battery-powered device designed with the look and feel of a traditional cigarette, is meant to deliver inhaled doses of nicotine-containing aerosol to users.

In 2016, a total of 24 studies, including three randomized clinical trials, were reviewed. Two of the trials, with a total of 662 participants, showed that people using e-cigarettes with nicotine were more likely to stop smoking for at least six months compared to those who received placebo e-cigarettes without nicotine.

We want healthier Canadians, but before we make this decision, this legislation should be studied at committee.

Recently there have been some very interesting studies conducted on e-cigarettes. Some have suggested that e-cigarettes are less harmful, as they reduce exposure to combustible tobacco. For example, because cardiovascular risks associated with smoke are dose dependent, to reduce the number of cigarettes smoked from a pack a day to 10 a day would reduce risk.

Second-hand exposure to vapour from e-cigarettes has been tested to some extent, and there are studies that say that it has been found to be less toxic than cigarette smoke, as it does not contain carbon monoxide or volatile organic compounds. However, we know that people smoke marijuana, and it is unhealthy, just as when they vape marijuana it is unhealthy. This raises the concern that there is still a great deal of uncertainty when it comes to vaping.

It is important to know that because nicotine is a drug, it is subject to the requirements of the Food and Drugs Act and must be authorized by Health Canada prior to sale based on evidence of safety, efficacy, and quality. No vaping product has been authorized to date in Canada, and all nicotine-containing vaping products are being sold illegally.

It is very important that all restrictions on access and the sale of tobacco cigarettes to those under 18 also apply to vaping products. We need to keep our children safe. I would support restrictions on how vaping products are branded and marketed. It is important, and I hope the committee will have a chance to study this in greater detail.

The Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian Medical Association, and the Heart and Stroke Foundation have expressed the opinion that this could be one of the most important amendments we make to the Tobacco Act in decades. That is why Bill S-5 should be studied at health committee. We should get this right for all Canadians.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Tobacco Act and the Non-smokers’ Health Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today, I am speaking in support of Bill S-5 to amend the Tobacco Act to include and regulate vaping products and strengthen our hand in the fight against tobacco use.

As my colleagues mentioned earlier, the NDP has worked and collaborated with different governments in the past 30 years to promote and implement the principles underlying this bill. In 2009, the NDP introduced a bill restricting the labelling, packaging and sale of flavoured tobacco, prompting the Conservative government to legislate on the issue.

We have no choice: every year, 37,000 Canadians die from a tobacco-related disease. Tobacco use is the number one avoidable cause of disease and premature death in Canada. Think about it: every 14 minutes, someone dies from using tobacco.

The big tobacco companies want to maintain their profits despite the fact that products containing nicotine are responsible for the current situation. They lied for decades, trying to mask the harmful effects of smoking on public health. That is why it is clear that we must adopt strict and extremely explicit rules and that we must apply them to tobacco and vaping products as soon as possible.

A particular concern of mine as a former teacher is the question of plain packaging and these products’ appeal to young people. Unfortunately, too many young Canadians smoke. Approximately 17.17% of Canadians age 12 or over smoke every day. On average, smokers smoke their first cigarette at around age 13. The tobacco companies are always seeking new ways of attracting young people and promoting customer loyalty. Because we know that nicotine is addictive and that a third of all smokers die from tobacco-related diseases, we must take the matter seriously and pass legislation as soon as possible to prevent other young people from starting smoking and becoming addicted to tobacco products.

We also know that the tobacco companies can be extremely imaginative when it comes to designing packaging and developing techniques to make their cigarettes appealing. For example, they use pastel colours to attract women, one of their target markets. They also associate words like “sexy”, “beauty”, “fun”, and other terms related to the high life in bars with cigarettes. This gives tobacco products a falsely positive image.

If these health issues are not enough, the economic aspect might be of interest to my colleagues. The three largest tobacco companies in Canada made $25 billion in profit in 2015. Meanwhile, the direct and indirect health costs associated with tobacco use are approximately $4 billion per year in Quebec alone. We could repair hundreds of schools and thousands of potholes if we did not have to pay companies to make money from an addiction they themselves cause. These figures and many more can be found on the De Facto website.

Plain packaging helps make cigarette packages less appealing, particularly to adolescents and young adults. This was tested in Australia. The findings were clear: there was a significant decrease of several percentage points in the rate of tobacco use. In New South Wales, the most populous state in Australia, tobacco use among young people plummeted from 23.5% to 6.7%. In Toronto, former Australian minister Nicola Roxon explained to the press how effective the plain packaging law was in reducing smoking in Australia. Since the initiative was implemented in 2012, the number of smokers has dropped by 100,000. Proportionally speaking, we could see 190,000, that is, almost 200,000, fewer smokers in Canada. It is unbelievable. When we speak of tobacco-related diseases and deaths, we are talking about human lives that can be saved by implementing measures like these.

The tobacco industry knew that it would lose profits. For example, Philip Morris Asia sued the Australian government based on clauses in an investment treaty between Hong Kong and Australia. In its press release, the company explained that plain packaging was damaging to its intellectual property and used other spurious arguments to oppose the law. It tried to circumvent the law and manipulate the public, as it had done with nicotine. Finally, its arguments were totally rejected by the highest Australian court of law, and, apparently, the company has been making smaller profits in Australia since then. That is not entirely surprising.

This anecdote reminds us how important it is to bring in plain packaging as soon as possible, and also to be cautious when signing free trade agreements, so that companies like Philip Morris Asia cannot try to undermine our legislative arsenal protecting the health of Quebeckers and Canadians.

The second point in the bill is the regulation of vaping products, the so-called e-cigarettes. The NDP knows that this new technology is a promising harm-reduction tool to help people quit smoking. However, we do not have clear information about the long-term effects of vaping, and we need some in-depth research. We hope that this information will come over time, as the Standing Committee on Health studies this bill.

However, the benefits of this product are still debatable, since little is known about some of the products. Vaping products may contain nicotine, which is still a public health hazard. The department prohibits their importation and has seized a number of products at the border, which shows why we need to do more to limit access to products containing nicotine.

Some methods used to sell e-cigarettes, such as adding flavours, are the same as those used to sell tobacco. Banning some ingredients used to make these products taste better was a good first step, but this bill unfortunately does not prohibit all tobacco flavours, such as menthol. We must limit added flavours as much as possible to ensure that vaping products truly help lower the use of cigarettes and other tobacco products.

Another positive element in the bill is the restriction on the promotion of these products and on the addition of certain ingredients that could be perceived as healthier. Children and youth need to be protected from harmful advertising campaigns. As long as the long-term effects of vaping remain unknown, they cannot be declared safe. We need to apply the precautionary principle, restrict access to this product, and not allow companies to slip in additives, such as vitamins, in an attempt to make the product seem healthy when it is not.

Any regulatory framework for e-cigarettes must seek to maximize the potential benefits of these products as a means of reducing the harmful effects of smoking, while limiting their potential health risks and restricting access for youth.

Today is January 30, 2018. The Liberals need to speed up the passage of this bill. In 2015, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health released a report entitled “Vaping: Toward a Regulatory Framework for E-Cigarettes”. The Committee had held eight meetings and heard from 33 witnesses. The report contained 14 recommendations, including a recommendation that the Government of Canada work with all affected stakeholders to establish a new legislative framework that would set maximum levels of nicotine, among other things.

Thanks to this report, we already had all the information we needed to implement this bill. However, the Liberals waited more than two years to present us with a bill, and they tabled it in the Senate instead of the House of Commons. I will say it again: passing this bill could save lives. I hope we will be able to pass it quickly and improve it along the way.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to add my comments to the debate 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. After reading that very long title, people might be wishing to go back to the days of the Conservative government, when we had very catchy phrases for our particular pieces of legislation.

There are three components I would like to focus my comments on. One is vaping; the second is the intended plain packaging; and the third is the issue of flavours. If there is a little extra time, I might have some general comments on public health and the approach it is taking.

In May 2015, there was a unanimous report from the health committee. I was on the committee at that time. We worked hard, and we said that we needed a regulatory framework on vaping. We presented 14 recommendations to the government in May of that year, looking forward to the government's response. The report was unanimous and said that we needed a regulatory framework. As we know, there was an election a short time after that, and the government of the day did not have the opportunity to respond and move forward.

I find it interesting that this was in the mandate letter of the minister when the Liberals were first elected way back in the fall of 2015, a few short months after this unanimous report was presented with recommendations, and it has taken almost three years to get this particular piece of legislation to the stage it is at now. It speaks to how long it actually takes the government,when it sets something as a priority in the mandate letters, with a lot of the background work already done and a consensus within the House, to get what it says is a priority to the table. There are recent articles showing how ineffective the government has been in passing legislation, especially on something that has pretty solid support, such as the framework on vaping.

The government can never leave things simple, and it had to add a number of other issues to this piece of legislation, which I will talk about a little later. With regard to vaping, it is absolutely appropriate that there be some structure around it. Things like prohibiting the sale to minors, prohibiting promotion of vaping products that appeal to youth, and submitting information to Health Canada are all sensible pieces of moving this forward.

I know that some of my colleagues have mentioned this, but it is important to note. The member for Cariboo—Prince George, as many know, is in hospital right now, and all of us in the House wish him a very speedy recovery. It speaks to his dedication and passion for what goes on in Parliament that he has been watching the debate and sending messages to all of us as we are coming up for our opportunity to speak, asking whether we have seen a certain article or whether we are aware of this or that. I want to say to the member for Cariboo—Prince George that we wish him well. He should make sure he gets enough rest because he said he was going to look for a better balance.

I will bring to the attention of members the article he sent. It is very recent, from January of this year, and it is entitled “Teen baseball player’s stepmom calls for stronger vaping regulations after his death”. He was 14 years old. He was found collapsed in the bathroom with some vaping products beside him. Of course, his death cannot be directly attributed to them. The story is about his going to the hospital and how he died shortly thereafter.

However, it is enough to raise a caution. It is enough to say it was a young man who was exposed to a product, so there certainly are some things that we need to perhaps look at and watch from there, which really speaks to the fact that we might have a regulatory framework that is in place to provide some protection, but there is an actual need to continue the research.

I do not think anyone has talked to this particular issue. Right now it is a bit of a no man's land in terms of people selling products that are illegal, but here is a recent study that talks about the importance of research and knowing what is in the products that people are vaping. It links chemicals in flavoured e-cigarettes to a respiratory disease that is called popcorn lung. Right now people need to be very cautious because there are no controls in place in terms of what they are actually inhaling.

This says:

A chemical found in the vast majority of flavoured e-cigarettes tested by researchers in a new study has been linked to severe respiratory disease. The study out of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, released Tuesday, tested 51 types of flavoured e-cigarettes and refill liquids, known as e-juice.

It was actually a couple of years ago.

“ln our study we focused on flavours we feel are appealing to children and younger consumers,” the study's lead author Joseph Allen, assistant professor of exposure assessment science, said. “Flavours like Waikiki watermelon, alien blood, cupcake and cotton candy.”

The researchers said the flavouring chemical called diacetyl was found in more than 75% of the products tested.

This goes back to popcorn factories where people working there were getting a debilitating respiratory disease, bronchiolitis obliterans, and it is known as the popcorn lung. It is very serious and often can require a lung transplant—an irreversible lung disease.

What is concerning about that is smoking damages the lungs over a long period of time, but the effects of diacetyl and the creation of popcorn lung is much more rapid and much more concerning. It can be ingested, but when it is inhaled into the lungs, it is certainly a problem. We know it is in e-cigarettes. In the U.S. there are more than 7,000 flavours on the market, many of them containing this. Health Canada has not yet regulated e-cigarettes, so that is a word of caution for people who are using the product.

This leads me to the flavours issue. One of the things that our government committed to in the last Parliament was to ban the flavours that were appealing to youth. I know there were chocolate, strawberry, and banana flavours that were on the market and very appealing to youth.

At that time we had a pretty significant discussion and debate about menthol. There was a suggestion that we should also ban menthol, and the decision at that time was that menthol had been in cigarettes for many years; it is a product that is legal in Canada; it is a product whose risks adults who choose to smoke are aware of. They have chosen and used menthol cigarettes for years, and we thought it was unduly unfair for the government of the day to ban menthol.

I notice in this legislation that the new government has decided to go ahead with that. Perhaps members need to hear from people, especially adults, who had a lot to say about that issue, when a different decision was made in the past. I certainly agree with the issue around the strawberry, chocolate, and banana tobacco, but menthol was something we did consider.

There is not a lot of time, and the plain packaging is the final area that I want to note. We hear that it might be very helpful. We hear that it has not made a difference.

Coming from British Columbia, I did not realize how much of an issue contraband tobacco was until I came to this House and heard from my colleagues from Ontario. It was a pretty consistent conversation we had. The other thing is that, for the first time in my life, I saw these bags of contraband tobacco. Of course the Canadian government policies significantly impacted the contraband tobacco industry. There needs to be a very thoughtful conversation in committee on that particular issue.

In general, we support this going to committee. We think there are a few areas that perhaps need some additional consideration.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that was precisely what I was trying to do, lay it out that Bill C-45 and Bill S-5 seem to be going in two opposite directions. I am asking the government for some consistency on this.

When it comes to a good cigar, however, there is something to be said about adding life to years rather than years to life.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the debate on the topic throughout today, particularly my colleague's comments, and there appears to be a conflict between Bill C-45, which is the cannabis bill, and Bill S-5.

Governments, provincial and federal, as well as organizations have spent a lot of money trying to stop people from smoking. We get into vaping, contraband, and a lot of these topics. All of these things are out of fear for our health, whether we are talking about illegal contraband, packaging, or health, when people go to a doctor or have surgery and have to sign something saying whether they smoke and when they stopped smoking.

In Bill C-45, it is almost like we are encouraging people by legalizing cannabis. The provincial governments will be selling different types of products or sending it out to have other people do it. Is there a major contradiction in the philosophy of these two bills?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would describe the thesis of my speech as helpful suggestions for committee stage. On the surface, there are quite a few positive things in this piece of legislation, and something I think all of us in the House can agree on is that it is a positive thing to reduce tobacco product usage. I am sure some lobbyists listening to this might not agree, but I think that is something we probably all agree on here. The question then is how we do that. Would the legislative framework we are looking to introduce drive to that end goal? Would it make Canada healthier? What are some of the opportunity costs? What are the costs associated with implementing this legislation? How do we make sure that at committee stage some of these issues are addressed?

For anyone watching, this bill was introduced in the other place and has gone through the reading stages there. It is an act to amend the Tobacco Act and the Non-smokers’ Health Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts. It was introduced in the other place on November 22, 2016. The bill proposes amendments that would implement a legislative framework under the Tobacco Act for vaping products. To clarify, a vaping product is defined in subclause 3(3) of this bill as:

(a) a device that produces emissions in the form of an aerosol and is intended to be brought to the mouth for inhalation of the aerosol;

(b) a device that is designated to be a vaping product by the regulations;

(c) a part that may be used with those devices; and

(d) a substance or mixture of substances, whether or not it contains nicotine, that is intended for use with those devices to produce emissions.

It does not include devices and substances or mixtures of substances that are excluded by the regulations, tobacco products or their accessories.

This has come up in debate already. As I understand it, and I would be happy to hear some clarification, this bill does not actually cover something that we would refer to as heat-not-burn cigarettes. When I studied this legislation, I will be honest that I had no clue about the differences between these products, but they are different and are being marketed separately now. It feels like one of those whack-a-mole situations where we have introduced this legislation to put regulations on vaping products, but we are now lagging behind on this other form of tobacco.

Since I have spent some time defining what the bill covers, my understanding is that the bill does not include heat-not-burn cigarettes. An article in The Globe and Mail in August 2017, stated:

One of the world's largest tobacco companies is rolling out a smokeless cigarette in Canada that it contends is less harmful than conventional combustible products, but some critics call the device merely a ploy to maintain – or even increase – market share in the face of dwindling smoking rates.

Philip Morris International has developed a heat-not-burn product called IQOS, or I-Quit-Ordinary-Smoking,—

They have tried to brand it as a smoking cessation product:

—that the tobacco giant says retains a high level of nicotine while reducing carcinogenic components found in the smoke of regular cigarettes.

As I understand it, this product heats the tobacco stick or cigarette up to a point where the substance can be inhaled, but is not actually combusting the product. Therefore, by the definition of the producer, not as many carcinogenic products are being inhaled. Under the theme of helpful suggestions for committee, my understanding is that the proposed regulations in the current bill do not cover this product, but we probably need some regulatory congruency just so there is some certainty both in the marketplace and for consumers and the health care system on what the government's intent is with this other product.

As far as I can tell, this product is being quasi-marketed as a smoking cessation product, but there has not been a lot of arm's-length research to show that it actually does that. The research that I have read on vaping products, which are also marketed as smoking cessation products, is that they actually prolong the period to cessation because people maintain their addiction to the nicotine.

As this bill heads to committee, I think that those particular claims and whether they are adequately addressed within this regulatory framework are important to address. If we do not have the quantitative data to look at that, then it is incumbent upon the government to initiate some studies to that effect. I did find as a legislator there was a bit of a gap in information on those claims. Certainly, the producers of these products have done research. As a legislator, I would like to see some arm's-length research done prior to making any sort of conclusions on that particular issue.

To continue on with the debate around the IQOS product, or this slightly less smoky cigarette, I want to read one of the complaints about it because I do not think the health minister has commented on this yet. It states:

David Hammond, an expert in tobacco policy at the University of Waterloo, said PMI and other tobacco companies have been making claims about minimizing health risks for decades, going back to the 1950s when filtered cigarettes were introduced.

“If they think combustible cigarettes are killing people and they would rather not sell them, then I would ask them why they continue to sell them?” he said.

Still, Hammond agreed that any nicotine product that doesn't involve smoke inhalation “is almost certainly going to be less harmful than regular smoked cigarettes. That includes e-cigarettes and it probably includes these products.”

I am reading that statement into the record because of the number of times “probably” and “maybe” are used. I think there are a lot of claims that are being inserted into the rationale for proceeding with this regulation. However, we just do not have a lot of quantitative data on it. Again, I am not trying to use that as a knock on the bill itself, but more that this is something which as parliamentarians we should be trying to get more information on at committee.

My colleague from Cariboo—Prince George, who is a fantastic colleague, brought an article to my attention that talked about the context as to why this legislation is important. An article was released a couple of days ago about a situation that occurred in Delta, British Columbia. A baseball player died under some circumstances and his mother has been calling for stronger vaping regulations after his death. This is the Kyle Losse case. His stepmother Niki Losse took Kyle to the hospital and then he passed away. She found an e-vape product where he had collapsed. A subsequent blood test determined that Kyle had nicotine in his system, and she believes there was some sort of an associated risk here.

The Kyle Losse case underscores the fact that there has not been a lot of research on the health effects of vaping tobacco. There are a lot of claims out there. While it might be true that the health impact of vaping products may be less harmful than traditional tobacco products, we do not understand what unique health challenges they may present.

As this legislation progresses, it is important for the government to look at a research framework around this issue, so that as we review the efficacy of this framework, assuming that it goes into force, we can measure those outcomes against quantifiable research. I must emphasize the point that when I was preparing for this bill, there was no consistent body of research that one could point to from credible, peer-reviewed sources that really hit a lot of these claims home. That is something we should look at.

A lot has been made about the plain packaging. I would like to take some time to talk about that as well and make a similar point.

The parliamentary secretary, in his introductory speech on this bill, talked about how Canada was lagging behind. In the past we had always been a world leader in legislation that aimed to reduce tobacco usage. He said that Canada had ceded the mantle of world leader in tobacco control to other countries such as Australia and the United Kingdom, that they had been quicker to adapt tobacco control efforts to address the always changing stories tobacco companies used to recruit new smokers, and that it was the government's intention to once again make Canada a world leader in tobacco control. The he went on to talk about the plain packaging component.

Australia has put in place plain packaging. On the surface, this is probably worth exploring, but there are associated consequences with it that we do not have a lot of research on, including the potential correlation between the introduction of plain packaging and an increase in contraband tobacco, as has been discussed at length in the House.

As always, when we as legislators use data from other jurisdictions, I sometimes feel we do ourselves a disservice, and I will get to that in a minute because there is not a lot of quantifiable data on that link one way or the other from other jurisdictions. Canada is in a fundamentally different context than a country like France. We are more geographically diverse, we have different problems with contraband, and we also have a higher rate of contraband being a problem.

At committee stage, it is worth it to perhaps bring in more experts who could speak to the problem of contraband and how the legislation with plain packaging could impact that and then amend the regulatory framework in such a way that perhaps the component could be addressed.

When I read the debate, one of my NDP colleagues asked the parliamentary secretary about this issue and the response was that the Liberals had a strategy to deal with it, which is administered by the RCMP and other agencies. I think that strategy actually turns out in March of this year. I have a concern that if this legislation comes into force and we have not adequately thought about the specific measures we need to implement within combatting a contraband framework unique to Canada, while layering on the additional pressure that the plain packaging regulations in this might have, we will do Canadians a disserve.

To emphasize the point of how much contraband is an issue in Canada, an article was posted by CBC in November 2017, which says “Contraband tobacco 'out of control' in Ontario, convenience store lobby says”. It says:

More cigarettes smoked in Ontario this year are contraband than in the last four years, a study released Wednesday by a group of convenience store owners in the province suggests. The study found especially large percentages of contraband cigarettes in northern Ontario. In the cities near Hamilton, the largest increase by far was in Brantford, where contraband cigarettes accounted for half of the cigarettes smoked, up from 36 per cent last year. In Hamilton, 31 per cent of cigarettes smoked were contraband, up from 25 per cent a year earlier. Across southwestern Ontario, contraband cigarettes rose to 33.9 per cent from 26 per cent in 2016 — the highest proportional increase in the four regions of the province studied.

The Ontario Convenience Store Association commissions the study every year, where researchers sweep a sample of about 100 butts from high-traffic locations like schools, hospitals, malls and casino in 23 cities. Then the group analyses whether the cigarette was contraband or was legally sold.

The group's president...told CBC News he acknowledges the survey isn't scientific, but said it does get at the trend without relying on consumers, stores or distributors to be honest about whether their smokes are legal.

The reason I wanted to put that on the record is that there is another theme there. He acknowledges that the study is not scientific. We hear on the news that there is an increase in contraband, but we do not really understand how widespread the problem is. This is one sample in one region of the country. It is important to note that Canada has regional differences in tobacco usage. Without having that framework, how can we possibly look at strategies to prevent the distribution of contraband products?

Again, this is a helpful suggestion as the bill goes to committee. It is incumbent upon the government to look at, as the framework for combatting contraband is potentially renewed or whatnot in March, the research on how much contraband is a problem should come to bear.

Perhaps the government could partner on with companies that are doing behavioural research on tobacco consumption using artificial intelligence technology. A lot of new companies are working in this space. Perhaps we could start looking at a better model on how we monitor this.

We love to regulate in this place. It is kind of our first reaction to any sort of policy problem. However, my concern with the implementation of the proposed legislation is that without the associated metrics or a system to measure the efficacy of the legislation, we really cannot tell our constituents whether what we have put in place here is working.

In looking at the proposed legislation, the government has not put a lot of information out to parliamentarians about the cost of implementing the framework. I do not even understand how the government would implement this framework. Therefore, I would like to see my colleagues who will study the bill at the health committee really question departmental officials about how they plan to implement it, over what time period, and what metrics the government will be using. What are the end goals? Is the government stating that the legislation will see x percentage of reduction of tobacco usage over a period of time? If so, how will the government measure that and what sort of quantitative analysis will it put in place to do that?

Again, my review of this shows that there is not a lot of framework out there or research being done on this. My concern, and I am showing my Conservative colours on this, is that we should not be moving directly to regulation without having that framework in place. We should be able to communicate to our constituents, when we put in place regulation, how much it will cost to implement and how we will measure it against stated end goals, which is kind of lacking in the bill.

On the surface, I do not oppose plain packaging. If the data is there to show that it reduces tobacco usage, then it we should probably explore this. However, my question is where is that data right now. The closest thing I could find in another jurisdiction was in France where it has had plain packaging regulations. Official data published on January 29 by the French agency shows that plain packaging has not had an impact on smoking rates. Indeed, according to l'Observatoire français des drogues et des toxicomanies, in the course of 2017, sales of cigarettes remained stable with a slight decrease of a 0.7% in volume after a 1.3% increase in sales during the first half of the year. This study was conducted between August 4, 2017 to January 29, 2018, so this is fresh data.

This failure was acknowledged by the French health minister, Agnès Buzyn, who stated, “We know that plain packaging does not lead smokers to stop smoking.” She concluded that “unfortunately in 2016, the official sales of cigarettes have increased in France. Plain packaging did not contribute to the decrease of official tobacco sales.”

The French study is worth examining at the committee stage. Also, when we do that, we should look at the regional context. What sort of factors does France have that might be different from Canada with respect to tobacco usage and contraband increases?

Whenever we seek to put regulations in place, we should be able to clearly define what we hope to see as the measurable policy outcome, which I am not sure has been stated here; how much it is going to cost; and then how we would measure success.

We need more robust research, and I would like to see the government put that in place prior to implementation of this framework.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to address Bill S-5 this afternoon. Bill S-5 is not about the legalization of marijuana, but I am going to talk a little about that anyway. The member for Winnipeg North, clearly holding up a lot of the government here today, will enjoy this in particular, I think.

The comparison between the way the government proceeded under Bill C-45 and what is happening with Bill S-5 is interesting and instructive. The reason I want to, later on in my speech, talk a little about the issue of marijuana legalization is that there is a bit of a gap when we hear members talk about the need to have clear information and the importance and value of plain packaging, but a member of the NDP cannot even answer my direct question about whether he supports plain packaging for marijuana. These comparisons are interesting. The push on tobacco, on the one hand, and then some of the messages with respect to marijuana, are clearly very much in tension with each other.

The other point I want to make in relation to the bill is that the government has spoken about the great work it has done, which happens from time to time in this place, but Bill S-5 originated in the Senate, so perhaps it is another opportunity to underline the fact that the Senate perhaps acts more independently than the government would actually like it to. When we have a bill coming out of the Senate that the government says reflects the work of the government, clearly it raises some questions about the actual independence level of the so-called independent senators the government is appointing.

I was going to move unanimous consent on something, but I will not anymore.

The issues that are dealt with in the bill are vaping and plain packaging for tobacco. The member for Winnipeg North appreciates my restraint, I am sure.

The bill speaks first about having plain packaging for tobacco. Members have probably heard, from different sides of this question, about the merits of this as a strategy for reducing the amount of smoking. For example, there are some people who argue that there has been a reduction in smoking as a result of plain packaging initiatives in some countries. However, in some of those cases, we can also see a long-term trend in the reduction of smoking in those countries anyway, so it can be difficult to establish a clear cause and effect if there was a reduction in levels, but it was consistent with a general social trend of a reduction in smoking.

The same argument could potentially be made about contraband. If we see an increase in the use of contraband after plain packaging, some might ask if that is part of a trend or something new. In general, as we try to make policy and respond to evidence, we have to, as much as possible, distill what seems to be caused by a change in policy and what might be part of an overall long-term effect. These are questions that, as we support the bill through to committee, I hope to see studied in detail, because it is not enough to have a good intention, obviously. We need to be able to demonstrate the link between the intention and the impact the policy would have practically.

One of the concerns we have heard about the proposal to have plain packaging is an increase in contraband. There are already very high levels of contraband tobacco. Over 50% of cigarettes in Ontario, for example, are contraband, and there is some evidence, although I know it is disputed by others, that plain packaging increases contraband. That creates all kinds of risks in terms of people being aware of what is in them, and obviously, the impact on health associated with that, and the greater risk of cigarettes getting into the hands of minors, and so forth.

I think there is a legitimate debate about plain packaging. It is not necessarily helpful when members characterize anyone who has legitimate questions about plain packaging as being put up to it by the tobacco industry. There is a legitimate discussion there, and I hope the committee will explore this in the spirit of that legitimate discussion. I myself remain relatively agnostic on the question. I am interested to see where the discussion on plain packaging goes.

On the issue of vaping, I have heard from constituents who have attested to the benefits for them in terms of smoking cessation. They have been able to make progress in cessation, as a result of access to vaping products, that they had not previously been able to make. I appreciate that feedback from constituents. It is something that I very much take note of as I consider the legislation in front of us.

What this bill seeks to do is regulate vaping. Certainly members have recognized the benefit of vaping, of having the information out there, and of further research. In particular, this part of the bill marshals strongly in favour of sending it to committee. There are different elements of this bill, some of which are more legitimately contentious than others. This bill deals with these two very distinct issues.

I think members know that the member for Cariboo—Prince George was in the hospital recently. I understand that he is doing very well now and is watching these proceedings. He had asked someone to highlight a particular story he had noted about a teen baseball player whose stepmother is calling for stronger vaping regulations after his death. This was someone who fell in the context of vaping and subsequently passed away. It raises again the importance of studying the issue of vaping and the impacts, as this bill does, and of exploring opportunities around regulation.

I want to send our best wishes to the member for Cariboo—Prince George and also to note this article he discovered and wanted to see raised.

I will go on to the issue of marijuana, because, as is well known, the government is proceeding with its plan to legalize marijuana. Members have heard the talking points on this. I almost slipped into saying them myself. To “legalize” and closely “regulate” is what the government always says. On the other hand, if we look at the kinds of regulations it is proposing and the arguments it is making in the context of Bill S-5, and we compare them to Bill C-45, it becomes quite clear that it is failing on this issue of close regulation, even when it comes to its own standards. I want to talk about some of those specific issues in terms of how we compare the agenda being advanced vis-à-vis tobacco and the discussion on marijuana.

First of all, we should acknowledge that while there is a great deal of public health information about the risks associated with tobacco use and a lot of information encouraging cessation from using tobacco, there is a general lack of information and advertising on the risks associated with marijuana. It has become clear to me, in some of the conversations that have happened in this House, that while one would never hear members say that they doubt evidence about the risks associated with tobacco, and there is agreement here that the use of tobacco is not good for one's health, on the issue of marijuana, there are members who really have downplayed the risks. Of course, we have a Prime Minister who has himself talked about his use of marijuana when he was an elected official while at the same time he was initially voting in favour of tougher sentencing with respect to marijuana. He then obviously changed his position. Perhaps he had some reckoning with something he was doing at the same time he was an elected official. Those kinds of messages obviously put out misinformation and confusion, in the minds of people.

I see that there are health claims being made about marijuana that are not backed by science and that are very much at odds with the kinds of claims we might hear made about tobacco. A lot of people may not know that use of marijuana, especially by young people, even relatively occasional use, can be associated with higher rates of certain mental health challenges later in life. The carcinogenic effects of marijuana are, of course, well established and, generally speaking, the carcinogenic effects of smoking marijuana are stronger than the carcinogenic effects associated with smoking a cigarette. Of course, people smoke them differently—they would not necessarily smoke a pack of joints in quite the same way—but the point is that the carcinogenic effects, pound for pound, are much stronger when it comes to marijuana. These are things that members are not always taking note of in their discussion around marijuana and, again, when it comes to the misleading health clams that we see sometimes made around marijuana.

I had a particularly jarring experience of this, which was captured by TVO. The member for Beaches—East York and I participated in a show that TVO put on—Political Blind Date, it was called—where we went to different facilities and learned about different sides of a question. We went to a facility in Toronto that has subsequently shut down, called Queens of Cannabis, where we were greeted by a so-called wellness expert who had no medical training of any sort, who was telling us about the alleged benefits of infusing one's children during pregnancy with THC. Obviously this is not something with any evidentiary basis, and yet it was the kind of health claims that were being made. We see some of these false claims being made and propagated with regard to marijuana in a way that, generally speaking, we do not see happening with respect to tobacco. There are not so-called wellness experts out there who are claiming to tell us about the benefits associated with using tobacco.

Recognizing that, the urgency of having clear, strong public health information associated with the risks of marijuana should be noted by members and should be well considered, and yet we do not have any requirements in this legislation for plain packaging on marijuana products. If members think that tobacco products should have clear warning labels, and I agree that they should, then why would the same not hold with respect to marijuana? If, as some have argued, plain packaging is beneficial for reducing the smoking of cigarettes, then why would not the same principle apply in the case of marijuana? It is strange to me and I have a hard time understanding, on the one hand, the approach to tobacco and, on the other hand, the approach to marijuana.

The government members have also talked about how, if we legalize and strictly regulate marijuana, so they say, it will be kept out of the hands of children and the profits will be kept from organized crime. I can almost give the speech from their side, I have heard the line so many times. However, when it comes to tobacco we see, as members have said today, how very often people start smoking when they are underage. It is very common that young people still access tobacco products when they are underage, and there is still a great deal of contraband tobacco that benefits organized crime. Therefore, how do we square the claims that the government is making with respect to marijuana with the information that the government members are talking about? For instance, I think it was the member for Winnipeg North who talked specifically about the age at which people often start smoking tobacco. If nothing else, the government should be considering promoting a reduction culture around marijuana as it legalizes it, but it is not even doing that, at least not in the same way that it is trying to do so with respect to tobacco.

The situation with contraband tobacco makes a point that was lost in the debate around marijuana, which is that just because a product is legal does not mean organized crime cannot be involved in that industry and benefit from it.

In reality, organized crime does not just sell illegal products. It can use illegal methods to sell legal products. Organized crime can benefit from exploiting instances of regulation or taxation, which provide it with an opportunity to operate outside of the legal sphere even while selling a product that is legal. In the case of tobacco, it is regulation and it is taxation.

I think all members are supportive of the idea of having taxes on tobacco, but when those taxes are in place, a reality is that they create an opportunity that might not otherwise exist for organized crime to be involved in that industry. That is simple, basic economics.

When it comes to marijuana and the federal government and other levels of government talk about taxation, regulation, and age restrictions, all of these dynamics will ensure that organized crime is still involved. It is a reality that organized crime is not being shut out of the picture. Those risks will continue to be in place for young people to access it.

If we look at the history of organized crime, frankly, this is true. Organized crime has benefited in certain instances when products are illegal, but it has certainly not ceased to operate when said products are legalized. Organized crime made a lot of money during alcohol prohibition, but it certainly did not go away or cease to make a lot of money after alcohol prohibition ended.

The other issue that we need to note is flavour. The last government addressed the issue of flavoured tobacco products, but the present government is open to moving forward in the future on edibles and on questions around flavouring in marijuana. There is not the same approach, with respect to the risks of flavouring and the impact associated with it when it comes to marijuana, as the approach when it comes to tobacco, and that is quite interesting.

The particular issue, as well, with marijuana is that it is just much easier to grow than tobacco, from what I have been told. The Liberal government would allow home grow. People are not growing four tobacco plants in their home regularly. Am I right?

The risk with the marijuana discussion, again, is that an environment has been created in the bill where we are going to have flavoured products, where we do not have clear health information, and where we do not have those same warning labels. As a result of allowing home grow, we will have the continuance of an illegal market, the continuance of a situation where it will be relatively easy for young people to access marijuana.

I want to make this point as well. The government has argued with respect to its marijuana legislation that the current approach is not working. If we define success as the complete elimination of marijuana use, then we could say that the current approach has not achieved complete cessation. However, nothing is going to achieve complete cessation. We have not achieved it on smoking and we have not achieved it on very hard drugs either.

Over the last 10 years we have seen a substantial reduction in marijuana use, and the numbers bear that out. I presented them in questions and comments in discussion with the Minister of Justice. If the goal was to reduce use and therefore reduce the risk, then the approach that was being taken to marijuana was not perfect—there were certainly opportunities to improve; our party favours the ticketing option—but it is quite clear that success was being achieved in terms of reduction.

To summarize, we are supportive of sending the bill to committee, of further studying the issues around plain packaging as well as vaping. I encourage stakeholders as well as my constituents to keep us informed about their perspective and proposals they have for potentially improving the bill.

It is important to highlight how the government's approach to marijuana legalization is very much exposed by this bill, and how the lack of proper safeguards and procedures in Bill C-45 is evident in comparison to Bill S-5.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Vancouver Kingsway for his ever-thoughtful and very comprehensive educational view of what Bill S-5 offers and what it does not.

I am in the same boat as the hon. member. I look forward to the opportunity to plug some of the holes in committee, in my capacity as a non-member of the committee summoned for clause by clause. However, I do want to press him a little, because while the initial evidence is very clear that vaping can help people give up smoking, and therefore the statistics he shared with us are well known, that it could be a very good smoking cessation technique, the long-term health effects are not yet known.

I am wondering if the member could share with us if there is any general medical concern about the direction of the long-term health effects. What kinds of health effects? Is there any sense of what the medical community is looking for in terms of epidemiology or lab tests? I am curious about that aspect of this new smoking cessation technique.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S-5, the tobacco and vaping products act.

Canada's New Democrats have long called for the measures contained in the proposed legislation and we will work positively with the government to facilitate its implementation at every stage to ensure it is passed and improved as soon as possible. The legislation will save lives.

Indeed, our party has led the fight in Parliament for strong tobacco legislation for decades. As we all know, tobacco products contain deadly carcinogens and many other harmful substances that are injurious to human health. We also know that tobacco products are highly addictive. It is really a perfect storm, a terrible substance that kills and addicts the consumer who tries it.

In the 1960s, when the federal government was still unwilling to pursue an effective control tobacco policy, more than 20 private members' bills to control tobacco packaging, labelling, and advertising were introduced by opposition members. More than half of them were introduced by NDP MP Barry Mather.

In the fall of 1986, over 30 years ago, NDP member of Parliament, Lynn McDonald, introduced a private member's bill, “The Non-smokers' Health Act”, Bill C-204, to ban tobacco advertising and smoking in workplaces under federal jurisdiction. Unlike most private members' bills that unfortunately die on the order paper, this legislation would go on to become law, albeit in a modified form in 1988.

In 2008, former New Democrat health critic Judy Wasylycia-Leis launched a successful campaign to ban flavours in tobacco products. At that time, of course, the addition of flavours to tobacco was another insidious move by tobacco companies to try to skirt effective regulation and continue to hook Canadians with their product.

The legislation before us today, Bill S-5, was introduced in response to the 2015 report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health entitled “Vaping: Toward a Regulatory Framework for E-Cigarettes”.

In essence, the proposed act before us today aims to protect youth and Canadians from nicotine addiction and tobacco marketing, by granting regulation-making authority to the Governor in Council for the implementation of plain and standardized packaging for tobacco products and by creating a new legislative framework for regulating vaping products in our country.

Since it first took office, Canada's New Democrats have been calling on the Liberal government to expedite the implementation of plain packaging requirements for all tobacco products. Plain packaging has proved to be an effective way to reduce smoking, discourage young people from starting to smoke, and decrease second-hand exposure to tobacco smoke. Every month we delay, more Canadians, especially young Canadians, start smoking and become addicted. That will result in more Canadians dying from tobacco-related illness. Action is needed immediately for the health of all Canadians.

According to the Canadian tobacco, alcohol and drugs survey in 2015, 115,000 Canadians started smoking daily, with 82% of daily smokers starting before the age of 18. This means that of those 115,000 Canadians who start smoking pretty much every year, most of those people are under the age of 18. One-third of them will ultimately be affected negatively in a health consequence and die from that tobacco use.

The Liberal government issued mandate letters to their cabinet ministers in 2015. One of those mandates was to bring in this legislation. Here we are, almost three years later in 2018, and the legislation is still before the House and has not passed.

What did the health minister and the government do when they were given that mandate? They decided to consult. Consult about what? Did they not know that tobacco products killed? Did they not know that tobacco products were addictive? Did they not know that plain packaging worked? I will get into that in a few moments because all three of those questions need to be answered.

We knew the answers to all those questions back in 2015. Therefore, it is inexcusable the government delayed and dithered for years to bring in this legislation. We know that every day young Canadians start smoking, get addicted to cigarettes, and will ultimately die in large numbers from that.

This means that since 2015, somewhere between 250,000 and 300,000 Canadians have started smoking and become addicted since the government first said it was going to act on this matter. That is not putting the health of Canadians first, and it is not giving the priority to the health of Canadians that New Democrats believe is appropriate.

As Rob Cunningham, senior policy analyst with the Canadian Cancer Society, said:

The sooner we have tobacco plain packaging, the sooner we can have the health benefits. Plain packaging will reduce the appeal of tobacco packages and brands. Right now, tobacco companies are using brand colours and logos to make cigarettes more attractive. That might include mountain scenes or feminine pastels, it might include super-slim packages targeted at women.

I think many parliamentarians in this room have been approached by members of the Canadian Cancer Society and anti-tobacco groups. They bring with them samples of the products tobacco companies are using to market, particularly to young people and especially to young women. That marketing is disgusting. They market small slim packages that are meant to look like cosmetics, slim so they fit in a young woman's small purse at night clubs. They are directly trying to addict young women in particular to tobacco products, using sophisticated marketing techniques to do that. They are marketing a carcinogen that is addictive and that kills to our young girls and women. That needs to stop.

Plain packaging for tobacco products would standardize the appearance and size of cigarette packages by requiring the removal of all brand imagery, including corporate logos and trademarks. Packages would display a standard background colour, usually a very unattractive greenish-brown, and manufacturers would be permitted to print only the brand name in a mandated size, font, and position. Other government-mandated information such as health warnings would remain in prominent fashion.

The changes would render cigarette packages almost indistinguishable from each other, which would make them less attractive to consumers, especially young people, and would make the health warnings clearer, more prominent, and more effective.

With respect to the government needing to consult, plain packaging was implemented in Australia in 2012, six years ago; in France, Hungary, and the United Kingdom in 2016; and in Norway and Ireland in 2017. Again, we have empirical evidence from around the world from jurisdictions similar to ours that plain packaging works, and the government chose to wait and delay rather than act forcefully and effectively. Plain packaging is also under formal consideration in Slovenia, Sweden, Finland, New Zealand, Singapore, Belgium, and South Africa, among other countries.

The New Democrats believe Canada should have the strictest and most rigorous plain and standardized packaging regimen in the world in order to promote public health. While this act is an excellent start, it is not perfect and requires some scrutiny to ensure it meets its full potential. For example, in its consultation document on the proposed regulations concerning plain packaging, Health Canada did not include the option of further regulating brand names beyond limiting the number of words they could contain.

I met with the former health minister of Australia, Nicola Roxon, who told me we had to close every loophole in these regulations or tobacco companies would find a way to exploit them. That even includes things like their names. If we do not put controls on their names, then we will see things like “Sexy Brand Smoking Inc.” or “Young People Beauty Cigarettes Inc.” We will see the tobacco companies use that kind of marketing to get their messages to young people. We, as parliamentarians, have to ensure that does not happen.

This is why New Democrats are calling on the government to ban all brand names and terms with positive connotations, as is the case in France and outlined in the European Commission tobacco products directive. Canada should also prohibit tobacco brand variants, as is done in Uruguay.

In the past, partial marketing bans for tobacco have had limited effectiveness. When most traditional forms of tobacco advertising were prohibited, big tobacco's marketing expenditures did not stop; they simply shifted to other channels, including packaging and the retail environment.

Plain packaging not only eliminates one of the last remaining marketing avenues available to big tobacco, it also enhances the impact of health warnings.

Health warnings are the most cost-effective, self-sustaining way of communicating with Canadians about the harms of tobacco. Effective warnings should be large, prominent, be unavoidable, use colour, and include pictures. Large pictorial warnings are the most effective way to reach children and youth and the most vulnerable members of our society with low literacy.

However, warnings are not just about scaring consumers away from a deadly product. They are also about informing Canadians and providing access to support for those who need it to overcome their nicotine addiction. In Canada, every cigarette pack includes a telephone helpline number and a website for helping Canadians stop smoking.

Dr. David Hammond, professor at the University of Waterloo School of Public Health and Health Systems, recently informed the health committee that this approach had been extensively evaluated and worked very effectively.

Moreover, despite big tobacco's efforts to mislead the public, all credible evidence shows that the removal of branding does not promote illegal or contraband sales. The only research that has found any link between contraband market increases and plain packaging comes from studies funded directly by the tobacco industry.

Specifically, this research comes from reports commissioned from KPMG that had to include a disclaimer that they were not to be used for any purpose other than what the funder decreed because the terms of reference were so narrow that they could not be used to draw any broad inferences. Indeed, KPMG took the extraordinary step of writing to the U.K. minister of health to state that the tobacco industry was misusing its work.

The argument that plain packaging increases contraband tobacco sales has been repeatedly put forward by big tobacco in court cases as well, and it has been rejected every time. In fact, five separate legal rulings have affirmed the positive impact of plain packaging.

This sort of deceptive behaviour from big tobacco is nothing new. Today's fight for plain packaging follows a long and dark history of big tobacco engaging in orchestrated campaigns to deceive the public about the harms of its extremely deadly product. Indeed, in a landmark 2015 Canadian court ruling, three of the world's biggest tobacco companies were ordered to pay $15 billion for their duplicity.

In his ruling, Quebec Superior Court Justice Brian Riordan pulled no punches, saying:

By choosing not to inform either the public health authorities or the public directly of what they knew, the Companies chose profits over the health of their customers. Whatever else can be said about that choice, it is clear that it represents a fault of the most egregious nature and one that must be considered in the context of punitive damages.

Despite big tobacco's attempts to obstruct the truth, we know that of the more than 4,000 chemicals found in tobacco smoke hundreds are toxic, including hydrogen cyanide, lead, acetone, arsenic, and formaldehyde. At least 70 of these chemicals are known carcinogens. We know that every day, 100 Canadians will die of a smoking-related illness. That is one every 14 minutes. That is 37,000 Canadians who will die this year due to smoking. Of those, over 1,000 non-smokers will die of lung cancer and coronary heart disease caused by exposure to second-hand smoke.

We also know that big tobacco has no qualms with continuing to aggressively market this poison to young people in order to encourage and exploit their addiction to a product that will ultimately kill them. However, I am heartened to see that this generation of young Canadians is fighting back.

I recently had the honour of attending the Freeze the Industry luncheon on Parliament Hill. Freeze the Industry is a youth-led coalition that is dedicated to stopping big tobacco from developing and marketing products that entice young people. I was inspired to see the coalition's unwavering support for plain and standardized packaging for tobacco products in Canada.

I also must give tremendous credit to organizations that have been on the front lines of this battle with big tobacco for decades. Their tireless efforts have saved countless lives over the years. Although there are too many to name individually, I would like to specifically recognize the advocacy of the Canadian Cancer Society, the Heart and Stroke Foundation, the Canadian Coalition for Action on Tobacco, Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada, the Canadian Lung Association, and Coalition québécoise pour le contrôle du tabac. Of course, I would be remiss not to recognize the heavy lifting that has been done for us by Australia's former health minister, the hon. Nicola Roxon, who led the global fight against big tobacco to bring in the world's first set of plain-packaging requirements. That is leadership.

I might also point out that in Australia, tobacco giant Philip Morris brought a claim against Australia under investor-state dispute settlement provisions in a Hong Kong trade deal in 2011. Thankfully, this was unsuccessful, but it is another example of the misguided inclusion of investor-state lawsuit provisions in trade agreements, which Liberals and Conservatives continue to push.

By the way, Philip Morris also failed in a bid to challenge the constitutionality of plain-packaging laws in the High Court of Australia in 2012. After a five-year legal battle, Australia's plain-packaging requirements were upheld at the World Trade Organization in 2017. Therefore, we cannot underestimate the lengths and steps that big tobacco will take in order to continue to legally market its dangerous and fatal product.

Canada's New Democrats believe that we cannot give big tobacco any room to manoeuver to continue to promote this deadly product. Canada must have the strictest and most rigorous plain and standardized packaging regime in the world, and that is what New Democrats will work towards.

The proposed legislation also deals with vaping products. The New Democrats understand that this new technology holds promise as a harm reduction tool to promote the cessation of tobacco consumption. An expert independent evidence review published by Public Health England concluded that e-cigarettes are 95% less harmful than smoking and have the potential to help smokers quit smoking. At the same time, the long-term health impacts of vaping are presently unclear and require further research. Thus, Canada's New Democrats believe that the goal of any regulatory framework for vaping products should be to maximize their potential benefits as a smoking cessation tool while minimizing their potential health risks and curtailing access for minors. Publicly, Health Canada has not established a harm reduction policy or articulated the goals and administrative measures that one would expect for such an approach.

At present, the vaping market in Canada is an informal grey market in which suppliers have kept a low profile and not aggressively marketed their products, which are technically illegal. There are growing fears that the passage of Bill S-5 will trigger the entry also of large tobacco companies into the licit Canadian vaping market, which is why I will now highlight some of the weaknesses of Bill S-5 regarding the advertising and promotion of vaping products and suggest some potential amendments to remedy these gaps.

First, the prohibition on promoting vaping devices containing flavours set out in column 1 of schedule 3 may be too narrow, since all flavours could be appealing to young people. The legislation should be amended to prohibit the promotion of vaping products that could potentially be appealing to young people.

Unlike the Tobacco Act, Bill S-5 contains no restrictions on permitted locations for advertising and promotion of vaping products, which means that Bill S-5 could allow advertising on television, social media, bus stops, arenas, or virtually anywhere. Therefore, the proposed legislation should establish strengthened restrictions regarding permitted locations for vaping product advertising and promotion.

While the current bill would also ban lifestyle advertising, with some exceptions, there is no provision that states that only information or brand preference advertising is allowed on vaping products. This is another area that ought to be looked at. Bill S-5 would still permit lifestyle advertising in bars and in publications sent to adults. This provision would serve no public health purpose and should be eliminated since there is no need for lifestyle advertising in relation to a harm reduction smoking cessation device.

Finally, Bill S-5 would still permit extensive incentive promotions for vaping products in places where young people do not have access. Things like contests to win beach vacations, access to invitation-only parties, and tickets to concerts and sporting events could still be allowed and they should not be in this legislation.

New Democrats will work diligently to try to make sure that the vaping provisions of this bill serve Canadian public health interests as much as possible. We will work very diligently in that regard.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, today we are talking about vaping. This is interesting because vaping is often associated with the bad habit of smoking. According to some available records, it took more than 50 years for people to understand that smoking is a health hazard.

That said, having worked at Health Canada from 2011 to 2013, I want to make a distinction between vaping and cigarette smoking, which is that people can vape with nicotine or with what I call placebos, which come in fruit flavours, for example.

Vaping has been recognized as a way to reduce cigarette use. In 2016, 24 studies, including three randomized clinical trials were reviewed. Two of the trials, with a total of 662 participants, showed that people using e-cigarettes with nicotine were more likely to stop smoking for at least six months, compared with those in the control group, who received a placebo without nicotine. We have to make a distinction between the two.

I fully support Bill S-5 because we need to show people that bad habits are never a good thing. People are replacing cigarette smoking with vaping because it becomes a habit. I have never smoked, thank goodness, but my mother smoked for many years and it had become a habit for her to have something in her hands, like the pencil I am holding right now. However, since my mother now has Alzheimer's she no longer remembers that she was a smoker and has stopped smoking. I think we also need to talk about that.

Most people smoke when they are stressed. There are chronic smokers and those who only smoke socially when they are having a glass of wine or a beer, but regardless, smoking is still a bad habit.

This bill seeks to prohibit vaping in public places where smoking cigarettes is already prohibited. However, I would like a distinction to be made between vaping with nicotine, which is just as harmful as smoking since it replaces cigarettes, can be habit forming, and can damage the lungs and bronchi, and vaping fruity flavours, which is not the same thing.

The bill prohibits the sale of vaping products to young people under the age of 18. If children have access to vaping, they need to be taught that vaping can be habit forming. Not every habit is bad, but smoking and vaping with nicotine can be equally harmful.

It makes me laugh when I hear my colleagues opposite asking us whether vaping can lead young people to smoke cigarettes. We do not want to create habits among young people that could lead to more harmful habits down the road. Vaping can lead young people to smoke cigarettes, just like it can lead them to smoke pot. However, the government failed to mention that.

Today we are talking about how evil cigarettes are, although people rarely talk about marijuana, although I think marijuana is worse than cigarettes, because it directly affects children's brains. That is the topic of another debate.

It must also be said that some people think that e-cigarettes are less harmful and that they reduce exposure to leaf tobacco. If the e-cigarette contains liquid nicotine, it is just as dangerous as cigarettes. It is important to make the distinction, because nicotine is the problem. Vaping is not a problem when there is no nicotine, when the liquid is nicotine free. That is altogether different.

It is important to remember that nicotine is a drug and that it is subject to the requirements of the Food and Drugs Act. Its marketing should be overseen by Health Canada based on safety, effectiveness, and quality.

I remember when the debate on vaping first began when I was working at Health Canada. At the time, it was still illegal to sell e-cigarettes in grocery stores and other stores. We wondered how these products were being sold in grocery stores, how people could just ignore it, if that was illegal and if the product was so harmful. It is unacceptable.

Now, we have a bill. I fully support this bill, but I think it needs more teeth. We need to flesh it out. If we want a good bill, we need to send it to committee so that it can be studied in depth.

I was listening to the speeches given earlier. It is true that scientists do not agree. They are all saying something different. They should work together so that we, as legislators, have a better idea of what this bill should seek to accomplish.

I will definitely be voting in favour of this bill because I think that we need to set some limits. Vaping with nicotine is what interests me the most because it is most similar to smoking. However, it is also important to remember that these products are being sold to consenting adults. It has been proven that vaping exponentially reduces the urge to smoke. I worked with a friend who smoked for 40 years. She was my assistant manager. She smoked three packs a day. That seems like a lot of cigarettes to someone like me who has never smoked. She started vaping and two months later she had quit smoking entirely, so vaping can be beneficial for some.

Now, we need to ensure that the legislation covers all aspects of vaping. In my opinion, a distinction needs to be made between vaping with liquid nicotine, which is more similar to smoking a cigarette, and vaping with flavoured liquids that do not contain any nicotine and can help people stop smoking by vaping grape-flavoured liquid or something similar. We need to be aware of that. I hope that the committee will look at that aspect. We need to consider all aspects of this bill because it is a good bill. It is a start.

It took 55 years to convince people that cigarettes were bad for their health. I hope it will not take 55 years to make them understand that vaping and marijuana are also harmful.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, some of the things we have pointed out today are challenges with this legislation. I would support the bill going to committee, but we need to do some more work on it. There needs to be some clarification and some corrections made to it. Basically, Bill S-5 is a good piece of legislation, but there are problems in it. The challenge for the committee is to solve those issues, and as I have mentioned, this would be one of them. It needs to be solved in committee so it becomes a better piece of legislation.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix.

I rise today to speak to Bill S-5, an act to amend the Tobacco Act and the Non-smokers’ Health Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

There is an old saying which John Wanamaker said about advertising, but it would work for politics too, that half the money we spend on politics is useless but we never know which half. Even if some of what we do in this place is fruitless, that certainly cannot be said of our efforts to combat smoking. The reduction in smoking rates in this country is a great success story. It demonstrates that well-designed legislation can improve Canadians' health. It is part of the half of what we do that really matters.

It is really worth reflecting on how far we have come. I can remember when smoking was absolutely everywhere. We have made huge strides. One in two Canadians in the 1960s was a smoker. Every second person was a smoker. Today that number is just 13%. We have made huge strides, but not all jurisdictions made similar progress. Smoking is still very prevalent in some countries in the world.

I am reminded of a story on the history of tobacco use worldwide. The author was on a train in another country when a local offered his friend a cigarette. His friend declined and the local was flabbergasted. He simply could not understand why someone would decline a cigarette. The cigarette used to have a similar cultural power in Canada. Not that long ago those ashtrays on desks in this place were in use. What started as a public sector ban eventually spread to the private sector. We no longer have to inform a server if we want the smoking or non-smoking section in a restaurant. Our country has really made progress in discouraging this deadly habit.

This brings me to the legislation we are debating today, Bill S-5. The bill seeks to expand our country's proud legacy of curbing tobacco use. The question is, does it successfully build on that legacy? The bill addresses some of the very important issues. On my way to work in the morning I have seen fewer people smoking cigarettes than before, far less compared to 20 years ago, but I am seeing more people puffing on small metal devices. When I initially saw them, I did not know what they were. They call it vaping. It does not quite have the cool look that cigarettes supposedly used to have. It is hard to imagine Clint Eastwood projecting his rugged image in those old westerns while puffing on a tube attached to a battery pack, but that is a good thing.

We know for sure that inhaling carcinogens into our lungs is neither rugged nor cool. The Marlboro Man died a long time ago of lung cancer. Does vaping really help people quit smoking as its advocates claim? A study by Public Health England found that vaping is 95% less harmful than smoking tobacco. That is a good start. It is called harm reduction. The vapour does not contain the carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds that cigarette smoke does, but it does still contain nicotine, which is, of course, what smokers are addicted to.

Studies have found that people using e-cigarettes with nicotine were more likely to stop smoking compared with those who received placebos. It is still supplying the addictive substance, but through a much less harmful delivery mechanism. It would still be best to get off nicotine altogether, but it is a powerful drug. For those who cannot, vaping seems to hold great promise as a less harmful option.

If vaping has such great potential to help smokers quit, then we need to be very careful in how we regulate it. However, before I speak further to that point, I want to make it clear that I strongly agree the vaping market needs some regulation. Nicotine is a drug subject to the Food and Drugs Act, but as it stands, no vaping product has been authorized in Canada. All nicotine-containing vaping products are being sold illegally. I assume that would come as a surprise to many people. I see vaping happening on Sparks Street. I do believe that most of those people do not know it is an illegal substance.

It is a Wild West market out there for these products, and this situation needs to be addressed. The vitally important provisions in this bill are those that ban the sale of vaping products to those under 18. The U.S. Surgeon General released a report in 2016 which found that 25% of students in grades 6 to 12 had tried e-cigarettes. In Canada, one in four youths age 15 to 19 reported having tried e-cigarettes. These products are making their way to those underage. This needs to stop.

We know that educating children about the dangers of smoking is most effective before they reach grade 6. Too often this is forgotten. We concentrate on warning them when they are teenagers, when it is often too late. With the rising popularity of vaping e-cigarettes, we need to educate children about their danger as well. Just because they have great harm reduction potential for adults who already smoke does not mean we want more people taking it up as an addictive habit. Nicotine is very addictive.

Education should go hand in hand with regulation. However, to return to my earlier point, we need to protect the health of adult Canadians without robbing them of a viable way to get off cigarettes.

While I support this legislation, I hope the committee will carefully consider certain aspects of it. For example, while some restrictions on branding and marketing are important, I am not sure that banning flavours is wise. Many adults enjoy a variety of flavours, and access to them might help encourage them to quit cigarettes. I, myself, have a jar of jujubes in my office. I am sure many of my hon. colleagues in this place have a sweet tooth. I am not sure about the logic of sweet flavours only appealing to children. Maybe there is a good case for completely banning flavours. I just think it is something the committee should consider in depth.

The other piece of this legislation that I hope will receive some careful consideration in committee is the implementation of plain packaging for cigarettes. I support measures that will reduce the smoking rate, but we do not want to see a corresponding spike in organized crime. It is important to remember that smoking is already at an all-time low in Canada. Five decades of combatting tobacco use has been successful.

We need to be careful about inadvertently supporting the contraband cigarette industry by taking drastic new measures, especially when existing measures are working. Will cigarettes with no branding at all, even on the filter, look identical to unbranded, contraband cigarettes? If that is the case, it becomes a consumer protection issue. Contraband cigarettes often have been found to contain ingredients that would not be allowed in the regulated Canadian market.

As far as I understand it, the Australian experience of plain packaging has led to unclear outcomes. They saw a decrease in smoking rates among adults, but a possible increase among those underage. Tobacco use as measured by tobacco expenditures was unaffected. A careful cost-benefit analysis needs to be conducted.

It is up to the hon. members opposite to prove that plain packaging will not aid in the sale of contraband tobacco. I should note that while I support this bill going to committee, I am surprised the government is supporting legislation to modernize smoking laws while at the same time legalizing marijuana.

It is a real mixed message to Canadians. If plain packaging is necessary to lower cigarette smoking rates, why has no similar rule been introduced for marijuana? The Liberals are rushing forward with Bill C-45 despite the objections of police forces and municipalities across the country. Like many aspects of legalization, these issues have been left unaddressed.

With that said, as it stands, I am in support of this bill going to committee. I think it has great potential to do a lot of good. The committee will need to consider some of the concerns I have raised today to make sure the bill does not result in unintended consequences. If the committee does that, I think the bill could really help foster a healthier Canada.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, let me begin by extending my sincere thanks to the member for Sarnia—Lambton, our shadow minister of health, for her excellent work in this area, particularly with respect to Bill S-5, and also regarding many other issues I deal with in the agriculture portfolio, including Canada's Food Guide.

We are here today to discuss Bill S-5, which regulates the vaping industry, a fast-growing industry. We are seeing more and more of these shops popping up in our municipalities and people coming out of them in a huge cloud of vapour. Vaping, which is very different from cigarette smoking, can be seen from quite a distance. We can even spot people vaping while driving their car and see the huge cloud of vapour that comes out. This is a fast-growing industry, and I think it will continue to grow over the next few years. Unfortunately, this industry is still not regulated.

The bill also provides for plain packaging in the tobacco industry. I will come back to this point a little later in my speech.

Bill S-5 deals with a very serious issue, one that is a very hot topic, given that the decisions we make here in the House will have an impact not only on us today, but also on all future generations.

Let us look back into the past. Had they been aware of all the health risks posed by tobacco, would the legislators in those days have made the same decisions? Would they have wanted to use tobacco as a source of revenue for the government? Would they have condoned the widespread use of tobacco in our society?

It is important to understand that the scientific knowledge back then was not what it is today. Legislators made decisions based on the information they had available to them. The tobacco industry today is in a downward slide, but it grew exponentially for years. Tobacco was a cash cow for many private corporations and for all levels of government that taxed tobacco.

Today, we have the responsibility of regulating electronic cigarettes. Do we have all the information we need to make the right decision, not just for the short term but also for the long term?

Let us come back to the situation and tobacco use, nicotine, and the costs of tobacco use in Canada.

Health Canada's Tobacco Control Directorate recently released a report, reviewed and commented by the Conference Board of Canada in 2017, summarizing the costs of tobacco use in Canada. The figures are from 2012. We know that tobacco is one of the leading causes of preventable morbidity and mortality worldwide. According to the WHO, the World Health Organization, tobacco kills more than five million people annually.

The report entitled “The Costs of Tobacco Use in Canada, 2012” provided an overview on mortality and costs in Canada, the provinces, and the territories based on 2012 data. An estimated 45,464 deaths were attributable to cigarette smoking in Canada, with about half of those deaths occurring among those 75 and older, and more than three-quarters among those 65 and older. This included 26,610 deaths among men and 18,000 deaths among women, or nearly 60% of deaths attributable to smoking among men.

This cause of mortality accounts for 18.4% of all deaths in Canada every year, or nearly one in five deaths in 2012. In other words, 125 people die every day in Canada from smoking. This surpasses the total number of deaths from motor vehicle collisions, other external causes of accidental injury, intentional self-harm, and assault.

In 2012, nearly 600,000 potential years of life were lost as a result of cigarette smoking, from causes such as tumours, cardiovascular diseases, and respiratory diseases. In other words, even if smokers do not die, there is still an impact. There are costs for society, because we must treat the individuals suffering from tobacco-related diseases.

These diseases cost our society $16.2 billion every year. Indirect costs represent more than half of that amount, while direct costs account for the rest. Health care costs obviously account for the largest part of the direct cost of cigarette smoking.

I could go on for quite a while about the costs. I think everyone agrees that when Canada authorized tobacco use, we had no idea that it would cost our society so much. There are significant human costs, financial costs that affect our society as a whole, and costs for smokers and non-smokers. Essentially, it costs every single one of us.

Everyone has their own history with tobacco. We all have a personal history with smoking. We might be smokers or former smokers. We may have never smoked. We may hate smokers. Someone in our family may have smoked so we were exposed to second-hand smoke. Maybe no one in our family smoked and we cannot tolerate cigarette smoke at all. Everyone has their own personal history.

I would like to talk about mine. I began smoking at age 15. Why? I was not really interested in smoking, but I wanted to be cool. Some of my friends smoked. There were also some nice young women I knew who smoked. I had to start smoking to be part of that group, so I did. I smoked half a pack of cigarettes in one evening. Of course, I was sick, but impressing those young women who were smoking was more important to me, so I continued to smoke. I smoked for several years. In the end, I was smoking two packs of cigarettes a day before I even turned 23. It is unbelievable. That is my personal experience, but how many young Canadians share that history? It is our history.

Tobacco causes addiction. Depending on the circumstances, some people are more likely than others to get addicted. I have to admit that I probably fall into that category myself. When it gets to the point where you have to smoke in the shower because you got up late, you know you have a problem. That is what it was like for me. None of this ever made me stop smoking.

What was the turning point for me? One day, my father, who was in his forties, went to the hospital with a sore throat. Sadly, it turned out to be throat cancer. For the next eight months, I stayed at my father's side as he dealt with the consequences of smoking. It ended badly. At the end of those eight months, my father passed away.

When did I decide to stop smoking? The day my father went in for his first throat cancer operation. That day, I made a pact with myself that I would never smoke another cigarette. I never wanted to be like my father and struggle with smoking-related illness. Cancer is the disease that affects most smokers. I have not smoked a single cigarette since that day, not even when my father passed away. To honour his memory, I decided to continue to abstain from smoking.

That is my story. I am sure many Canadians have similar cancer-related stories to tell, stories involving loved ones who have suffered as a result of smoking.

Last year, I lost a second family member. On December 24, my father-in-law died of lung cancer. Once again, he was a heavy smoker, just like my father. It is sad, but at the same time, it is also ironic. Even at the very end, smokers often ask to go outside to smoke one last cigarette, even though that is what is killing them. They know this, but at the end of the road, they still ask if they can please go out for a smoke.

That is what smoking does to us. That is what nicotine does to us. Is there anything positive about it? Not really.

Some will say that smoking relaxes them and makes them feel more social, but if that crutch were not there, if it did not exist, it would likely be something else. Who knows whether it would be any better or any worse. All I know is that smoking killed my father and my father-in-law, just as it kills 125 Canadians a day. We have to remember that. We have to think about that when the time comes to make a decision on vaping.

Today, as parliamentarians, we have an opportunity to express our views on regulations for the vaping industry. The regulations set out in Bill S-5 are not about prohibiting vaping. The bill is about regulating the industry. Are we going far enough? Do we have sufficient information? That is what I would like to discuss over the next few minutes.

In light of what I just said, it is obvious that I am a staunch anti-smoking activist. I am a peaceful activist. I will not attack my friends or colleagues who smoke a cigarette or vape from time to time. On the contrary, I have nothing against them. Society gave them access to tobacco. It is the tobacco that has them hooked on smoking. It is the nicotine in the cigarettes that ensures today that my colleagues and friends who smoke cannot stop. I have nothing against smokers, but I do have a problem with all those who profit from tobacco, especially tobacco companies, as well as, I have to admit, the different levels of government that collect taxes on tobacco year after year. These taxes do help our society function, but at what cost? What is the human cost today? That is what we must ask ourselves.

That brings me to vaping. I like how the Montreal Children's Hospital at the McGill University Health Centre describes vaping. It is important that we talk about it. I have a teenager at home so I have heard about vaping, but when I talk to people around me many of them seem intrigued by these e-cigarette machines. The question on the Montreal Children's Hospital website is: “How does ‘vaping’ e-cigarettes differ from smoking traditional cigarettes?” This is how the hospital responds:

A: You don’t have to look very far to see that the use of e-cigarettes—a practice known as vaping—is on the rise. Many people see e-cigarettes as a safe alternative to smoking regular cigarettes. So how do the two practices differ? And how are they the same?

Unlike regular cigarettes, e-cigarettes do not have tobacco. E-cigarettes are battery powered devices that have a heating element and a cartridge that contains liquid. [By the way, that liquid leaks and is very sticky. That is my take on it as the critic]. Puffing on the device heats the liquid, which produces vapour. Compare this to regular cigarettes where puffing burns the tobacco and produces smoke—the big danger for the cigarette smoker and everyone around them—not to mention the tar and carbon monoxide that the smoker inhales.

The e-cigarette might seem harmless by comparison but taking a closer look at what’s in the liquid raises other concerns. Like regular cigarettes, many e-liquids contain nicotine, even though nicotine for e-cigarettes is not officially approved in Canada. The liquids often contain other ingredients too, such as propylene glycol (PG), a popular food additive. They also come in hundreds of flavours such as strawberry, root beer and chai tea, which make them very tempting to children and teenagers.

The production and sale of e-liquids is not yet closely monitored in Canada, which means they may not always contain the ingredients and proportions listed on the label. What’s more, the e-cigarette industry is still so young that there’s no data on the long-term effects of inhaling e-liquids.

I would like to close with another excerpt from that answer. It reads:

Public health officials are now speaking out about the dangers of making smoking acceptable again, a trend that could potentially roll back decades of work achieved by anti-smoking campaigns. E-cigarettes should never be viewed as a better way to start smoking. Pediatric specialists all agree that whether it’s e-cigarettes or regular cigarettes, children, teens and adults should never take up smoking under any circumstance.

I think we all agree on that.

Are e-cigarettes a solution? What role should e-cigarettes play? Studies are just beginning to cast light on this. According to the latest study, which the media have picked up, vaping increases the risk of cancer and heart disease. Preliminary findings from a laboratory study involving mice and human cells indicate that smoking e-cigarettes can increase the risk of certain cancers and heart disease. The study was conducted by researchers at the New York University School of Medicine and was published this week in the proceedings of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Here is an excerpt from the report:

Although e-cigarette smoke has fewer carcinogens than tobacco smoke, e-cigarette smokers might have a higher risk of developing lung and bladder cancers and heart diseases.

That is what the research shows. However, they do not say whether vaping is more or less harmful to one's health than smoking regular cigarettes. The study is silent on that. Are there benefits compared to tobacco? Is vaping more or less harmful? The authors of the study did not even want to comment on that. They did not feel as though they had enough information. One thing is certain; more and more people are vaping, and more and more people are using it as a crutch. We do not have enough information to clearly determine how safe vaping is.

This study has been referenced in the media quite a bit in the past week. E-cigarettes cannot be simply categorized as either beneficial or harmful, as we heard from Mr. Eaton, the dean of the University of Washington in Seattle and chair of the committee that drafted the report commissioned by the U.S. Congress in 2016. He also said that in some circumstances, such as their use by non-smoking adolescents and young adults, their adverse effects clearly warrant concern. For smokers who use e-cigarettes to quite smoking, vaping does provide a way to reduce harmful tobacco use.

Once again, there are differing opinions. In seeking the truth, I took a look at the study findings. I am not a scientist, so I just read the scientific interpretation reported in the media. I want to thank these journalists for so concisely interpreting the findings of this latest study.

The Quebec government has already dealt with this issue and passed very stringent legislation on e-cigarettes. Quebec's Tobacco Control Act already subjects electronic cigarettes and all other devices of that nature to the same regulations as tobacco products. The display and sale of e-cigarettes is limited to specialized retail outlets. To protect youth, the act bans sales by Internet, telephone, or other methods, as well as advertisements online or in store windows. Quebec has figured out how to regulate this industry in order to curb advertising aimed at youth.

The federal government must move in the same direction, but we should take our study even further so we can learn more. That is why I am very pleased about this bill going to committee. I really hope it goes to committee so that my colleague and all the members of the Standing Committee on Health get a chance to study it further. I hope the committee gets an opportunity to invite one of the authors of the last study to speak about the dangers of vaping.

I also wanted to talk about plain cigarette packaging. In France, the adoption of plain-packaging regulations had little effect on cigarettes sales. Sales declined by only 0.7%. Over the same period, however, Marlboro, the most iconic American brand sold in France, saw sales of its cigarettes grow by 3%. People were able to recognize the cigarettes and name brands anyway and chose them over the cheaper alternatives. Swapping one cigarette for another is no less harmful.

I hope the Standing Committee on Health analyzes Bill S-5 in depth with the goal of protecting Canadians and Canadian youth, not protecting an industry or business that I believe should not exist anymore.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is right about the severity. I started my speech by saying that every 14 minutes a Canadian dies from a nicotine-related issue. The purpose of Bill S-5 is to regulate vaping products as a separate class of products. As such, the Tobacco Act would be renamed the tobacco and vaping products act. It would take the issue of vaping and put it into the Tobacco Act.

Even though vaping has been around in a significant way for the last 10 to 15 years, we have a government that is working with the different stakeholders and bringing forward legislation, among other things, to try to make a difference. This legislation would ultimately make a positive difference, and that is something we all want to see happen: fewer young people engaging in cigarette smoking and the population as a whole being better educated as to what the health risks are with respect to vaping.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Madam Speaker, 115,000 people a year become daily smokers. About 82% of them start smoking at or before the age of 18, so about 100,000 Canadians each year begin to become addicted to nicotine. That is a big challenge for us. Whether they ingest the nicotine by smoking or by vaping, and smoking is clearly the worse of those two by a margin, nicotine itself, particularly when people are addicted to it and having increasing quantities, is an unhealthy substance to be ingesting.

I thought it would be helpful if my hon. colleague would again remind the House what the steps are in Bill S-5 that would regulate vaping and reduce the attraction of this particular way of ingesting nicotine for our young Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to address what I would argue is a very important health issue for all Canadians.

It is estimated that every 14 minutes a Canadian dies from a tobacco-related illness, which is approximately 37,000 Canadians every year. Therefore, it is no surprise that this is an issue the government wants to move forward on. That is what this legislation is all about. It is about protecting the health and well-being of Canadians.

This is not a new issue. Many of us are from a generation that can recall the problems nicotine and smoking have caused over the years. I was a health critic for a number of years in the Province of Manitoba. One of the greatest expenditures in our health care system is related to tobacco or cigarette smoking, second-hand smoke, and so forth. Literally hundreds of millions of dollars are spent every year on smoking-related illnesses in our health care system. One could argue that this is part of the economic or social cost, which is that much greater.

Through time, we have seen a great deal of changes. I recall that, when I was going through school, smoking was perceived as a cool thing to be doing. It was very much encouraged. We can recall watching television programs where often the actors and actresses were smoking cigarettes. At the time, it was perceived as an okay thing to do.

As years went on, we found out that not only was it not overly cool to smoke, but the science became clear with respect to the cost of smoking, the health cost in particular. Unfortunately that science came out far too late. A high percentage of our young people and adults were already engaged in smoking at a substantial cost to society.

Fast-forward from the days I went school to the time when my daughter and son attended school. There were more educational programs in place. There were student bodies leading the educational fight to discourage individuals, particularly young people, from smoking.

Canada at one time was on the leading edge in terms of providing necessary legislation, promotional material, and education for student bodies that highlighted the negatives of tobacco. There was a push on issues such as cigarette packaging and how to ensure the proper communication was out there to say it was not healthy to smoke. The government and Canadians as a whole really started to recognize that.

When I was younger there was always smoke in the air at my house. I was breathing in secondhand smoke every day. Today, many individuals will exit their house and go outside if they smoke because they understand the value of having clean air in their homes.

Through municipal, provincial, and national governments, and so many other stakeholders, we have seen changes over time of great benefit to non-smokers and ultimately even smokers as they have become more educated. Not that long ago, people were critical of putting a tax on tobacco. They said the government was raising taxes again by increasing the tax on cigarettes. They did not realize that the cost with respect to the consequences of smoking was much more than there ever was in terms of the revenue generated from cigarettes. It is in the government's best interests to see less people engaged in smoking and that has been well established for decades.

When we look at the legislation we are debating today, much like yesterday, when there was a great deal of support on an issue that was important for Canadians, this too is a very important issue that all Canadians are concerned about. It is an issue that all parties inside the chamber are sympathetic toward, and that is the issue of addiction and the cost to society that nicotine has had over the years and continues to have today. In other words, there is so much room for improvement and I believe that all members, no matter what side of the House they sit on, recognize that we can do more. This legislation is a positive piece of legislation.

Our government is committed to working with many different stakeholders to make a difference. When we talk about stakeholders, we are talking about the different levels of government, including Canada's indigenous people, as they work alongside the national government to look for ways to improve our situation overall.

In fact, there was a national consultation done just last year in which there was a report that was provided and targets were set. We talk about wanting to see an ongoing decrease in dependency on nicotine, or in the smoking of cigarettes. I believe the target was set at a 5% reduction over the next couple of decades. I think that is an applaudable approach and I would encourage others to get engaged in terms of establishing and supporting that particular target.

As it has been pointed out, the government has a very important role. In particular, I want to highlight the provinces. I made reference to when I was the health critic at the provincial level. The provinces, in many different ways, participate at a grassroots level in terms of the regulations and the legislation that they have put in place. I will be getting into the issue of vapour shortly. Many provinces have already introduced and brought forward legislation dealing with vapour. It is important for us to recognize the need for national standards, understanding, and better promoting those standards throughout the country, and also for developing a long-term policy that will make a positive and profound difference for all Canadians.

We look at it in terms of the government supporting different initiatives and working with, for example, our first nations and Inuit communities in the development and implementation of tobacco-controlled products that are socially and culturally appropriate. This is something that the government has already done.

However, today it is all about Bill S-5, which amends the Tobacco Act to regulate vaping products as a separate class of products. As such, the Tobacco Act would be renamed the “tobacco and vaping products act” and would include provisions to protect youth from nicotine addiction and tobacco use.

The new federal regime would regulate the manufacture, sale, labelling, and promotion of vaping products. It would include provisions to restrict sales to youth and to restrict the promotion of certain enticing flavours such as candy that may be used to get more young people to engage in vaping. The inclusion of provisions to restrict sales to youth and restrict promotion of certain flavours will have a positive impact. It will also enable the government to put in place regulatory measures to reduce the health and safety risks related to vaping products by requiring, for example, child-resistant packaging to help protect children from nicotine poisoning.

The issue of cigarette packaging is once again dealt with in this legislation. We know that there are some countries that have gotten ahead of Canada in terms of taking a proactive approach to dealing with this type of packaging. One of the countries that I think we need to look to is Australia. Even though we have seen other countries' approaches, such as the United Kingdom, Ireland, and France, Australia has somewhat led the way in terms of the generic packaging or standardized packaging that has been brought forward.

Within this legislation we see that we have a government that is committed to looking at the types of things Australia is doing in regard to that standardized packaging. Once again, it is ultimately meant to discourage individuals from being brought into smoking in the first place.

We know there is a high percentage of 18-year-olds and young adults who begin smoking at a much younger age and dealing with the packaging issue would assist us in preventing some young people from smoking cigarettes.

The Tobacco Act would allow for requirements to be set out in regulations in this regard. Following the passage of these legislative amendments, regulations specifying requirements such as the permitted colour, font, and even font size on tobacco packages and products, and restrictions on the use of logos, graphics, and promotional information would need to also be developed. That is a major part of Bill S-5. It would enable the government to develop the regulations, which would bring us closer to what other countries are doing. It is the will of the Minister of Health to protect the interests of young people.

As for vaping, the key message that needs to be emphasized is that while scientific knowledge is still evolving on the issue, there is much more work to be done. There will be many more reports on the subject. It is clear that vaping products may bring public health benefits, if they reduce tobacco-related death and disease by helping smokers quit or switch completely to a less harmful source of nicotine, but it may also harm young people, in particular. That concerns me greatly.

I want, as much as possible, legislation that takes a proactive approach to the health of young people, the health of all Canadians but, in particular, on this issue, the well-being of young people. I believe there is a misconception today about vaping. People think vaping is a healthy thing to do and in certain circumstances, I suspect it is healthy, but there needs to be so much more research done on this. Until we see that additional research done so that we better understand both the good and bad of vaping, if we are going to err, I would rather err on the side of caution for better health.

A concern, for example, that I have is that many young people have led the fight in discouraging youth from cigarette smoking. To what degree is there an educational component for young people today about vaping? We know nicotine is being used in vaping and there is an addictive side to that. I would argue that we do not have enough information on the number of young people who may take up vaping, as an example, which would ultimately cause them to give up vaping and smoke cigarettes instead. There is a real risk of that and I have not seen information that clearly demonstrates that is not the case. That is why it is important for us to recognize the vaping industry, which is a growing industry. It is relatively new. The last 10 to 15 years is when it became quite popular in society. Now, with the many flavours offered and the imagery projected on the issue, it is a lure for many individuals, smokers and non-smokers alike, who look at it almost as a lifestyle issue.

I am not convinced that it is positive. In fact, I have grave concerns. That is why it is good that what we are doing in the legislation is bringing vaping under the tobacco legislation. I would like hear the different perspectives on that issue from members opposite.

Vaping has grown in popularity with the introduction of e-cigarettes. It is important that we recognize that vaping is an act of inhaling and exhaling an aerosol, which is often referred to as vapour. This is produced by what is most commonly known as an e-cigarette, but there are many similar types of devices used for vaping. They do not produce tobacco smoke. Rather, it is an aerosol, often mistaken for water vapour, that actually consists of fine particles, and it is those fine particles we need to be concerned about. They can contain varying amounts of toxic chemicals that have been linked to many negative health effects.

Generally speaking, when we think of vaping, it is done with a device with a mouthpiece. There is a battery component, which often causes issues we should be concerned about. There is a cartridge containing the e-liquid, or the juice, and a heating component for the device, which is powered by the battery. That is the makeup of something used for vaping.

There has been a great deal of concern, and harm has been caused. There is a growing body of evidence indicating that the chemicals in these products may be dangerous. There are many health advocates who are recommending caution and are calling for additional research on the potential risks versus benefits. Most e-cigarettes contain nicotine, the same drug found in cigarettes.

There was an NBC report that highlighted issues related to the nicotine and the cigarette aerosol causing bodily harm. A recent study conducted by the UNC School of Medicine highlighted that particular problem. The flavouring can target the very young.

I appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts and concerns.

The House resumed from November 3, 2017 consideration of the motion that Bill S-5, an act to amend the Tobacco Act and the Non-smokers’ Health Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Tobacco Products

[Simon Marcil, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present petition e-1237, signed by 10,251 people who want to halt Bill S-5 to ensure it will contain a separate category of tobacco products for the vaping industry.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

If I have time.... With regard to Bill S-5, we know that every day we wait on plain-packaged tobacco, young Canadians start smoking, get hooked, and will die—every single day. Why is Bill S-5 languishing on the Order Paper?

Why aren't we moving forward with Bill S-5 when every day counts?

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I'm sorry to see the Minister go because I had some really important questions for her.

I wanted to talk about Bill S-5 and the plain packaging. I sometimes wonder who would want to smoke when they see the proposed new packaging. It's a great approach. I think it has been effective. I think we have done a great job as a society to reduce the harm in smoking.

In light of that, I'm wondering if Health Canada is going to do the same thing with the marijuana packaging. One of your own Health Canada reports states quite emphatically that no one under the age of 25 should use this product.

Would that be part of the new packaging we will be seeing when marijuana is put out for public sale on July 1, 2018?

Business of the House

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will continue the report stage debate of Bill C-24, the one-tier ministry bill. Tomorrow, we shall commence second reading debate of Bill C-66, the expungement of historically unjust convictions act.

On Monday, we will call report stage and third reading of Bill C-51, the charter cleanup legislation. Tuesday we will return to Bill C-24 at third reading.

If Bill C-66 is reported back from committee, we would debate that on Wednesday with agreement. The backup bill for Wednesday will be Bill S-5, concerning vaping, at second reading.

On Thursday, the House will debate Bill C-50, political financing. Then on Friday, we will consider Bill S-2, the strengthening motor vehicle safety for Canadians act.

Recognition of Charlottetown as the Birthplace of Confederation Act

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour for me to rise again to speak to Bill S-236, an act to recognize Charlottetown as the birthplace of Confederation.

It has been a privilege to be a part of and to witness the debate and discussions surrounding the bill in both the other place and within the House.

At the legal and constitutional affairs committee in the other place, four amendments were made to the bill. One was a correction in translation and the other three improved the context and clarified the content of the bill. That debate brought renewed interest in the story of our great nation's founding and improved the bill.

Let me once again reiterate the bill's fundamental objectives: to affirm Charlottetown as the birthplace of Confederation; to complement provincial efforts; and, to build on the designation of Charlottetown as the birthplace of our country in order to honour, celebrate, share, and educate.

In the spirit of building on this designation, it is important to acknowledge once again a point that was raised throughout the examination of the bill, that being the lack of inclusive discussions at the Charlottetown Conference in 1864. Those were indeed different times. No indigenous people were involved and no women participated.

Dr. Ed MacDonald of the University of Prince Edward Island made an important point before the Senate committee on legal and constitutional affairs, “Confederation is not Canada, and it is not the story of Canada. It is one of the stories of Canada.”

I would like to fully read into the record, as was done in the other place, the statement issued by the Mi'kmaq Confederacy when consulted by my hon. colleague Senator Diane Griffin:

While the chiefs are generally supportive of the concept of Charlottetown being recognized as the birthplace of Confederation, they note that Prince Edward Island has been the home of the Mi'kmaq people for over 12,000 years, yet they were not invited to the Charlottetown Conference. In creating this legislative recognition, the chiefs believe that moving forward, the Government of Canada must include the indigenous peoples of this land on a nation-to-nation basis in all matters. This would also involve honouring the historic peace and friendship treaties with the Mi'kmaq.

Though we cannot rewrite history we can move forward with the lessons that we have learned over time and recognize and value the importance of an inclusive society, one that respects diversity in all of its forms and the value that it brings. In my view, the Charlottetown Conference was a beginning and in each of the 153 years since that time, we have built on that vision and we will build further on that vision going forward.

The Charlottetown Conference may be viewed as the watershed moment in the story of Confederation, the point at which Confederation turned from idea into prospect. However, the importance of the Quebec Conference in 1864 and the London Conference two years later cannot be understated.

During consideration in the other place, the preamble of Bill S-236 was amended in order to acknowledge those important conferences and to recognize Confederation as a process, a result achieved through the participation of many.

Before I became an MP I served for quite a number of years as president of the National Farmers Union. In that capacity I had the opportunity to travel in many of the farming areas of this country and spend the night in people's homes, to live in the communities, and to see the differences in the regions within Canada from coast to coast to coast. That experience showed me the great potential of this country. Canada may be diverse in terms of our regions and our sectors but in that diversity we find strength. I really do believe the founding fathers built better than they knew and we have tremendous potential for progress in the future.

Let me come back to the theme of inclusiveness and relationship building. It is my hope that Bill S-236 will inspire reflection on how we can build on the story of Confederation, and how together we can develop a narrative moving forward. One possibility is to develop the narrative through tourism. As the member for Malpeque, it is my privilege to represent an area that is so rich in culture, history, and beauty. Each year, my province welcomes many Canadians and international visitors from around the world, as do many other areas of Canada. We have some of Canada's most incredible treasures in Prince Edward Island, and we do not take that responsibility for their stewardship lightly. Islanders recognize as well the value of Province House, the last remaining building of the Confederation conferences and the story of Confederation, to boost tourism and serve as an important economic generator for us.

We also recognize the importance of a common vision to promote growth. In the spirit of Sir John A. Macdonald and the Fathers of Confederation, who travelled to New Brunswick and throughout the Maritimes after the conference in Charlottetown, I am confident that together we will find new and innovative ways to attract and educate Canadian and international visitors alike and build on both the rich history of Canada's Atlantic region and the story of Confederation.

It is important to reflect on that foundational time in our history as we near the end of the year-long celebration of our nation's 150th birthday. We look forward to the next 150 years as a progressive, inclusive, and growing country.

I want to thank those who have contributed in important ways to where we find ourselves today with the bill: Senator Diane Griffin, the sponsor in the other place; the member for Charlottetown; former MP George Proud; many other islanders who worked hard toward gaining the bill; Dr. Ed MacDonald; and all my colleagues in this place and the other place whose invaluable contributions to the bill made it better. The debate itself has allowed us to reflect, to honour, and to educate during this important year for Canada.

It is my hope that the next time I walk over the time-worn steps of Province House and stand in the chamber where the Fathers stood that this moment, which is enshrined in history, will also be enshrined in law.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's very helpful to know.

The one thing I would leave to the business that we have to deal with as a committee is the timing of it. I just think that we should resolve as a committee to make that our first study that we're going to do on our own initiative. I agree that legislation from the House takes priority, so we'll have to deal with that, and Bill S-5, for sure. I think it's at second reading. It hasn't been moved on the order paper yet.

Some of the private members' bills, like the one on drinking water, we have to do by April. The other one, on health research, we have a year, and quite honestly, I don't know how many meetings. That actually duplicates some of the pharmacare study that we had. It does touch on ways to make drugs more affordable, so I personally would not be in favour of devoting very much time to that study. The motion doesn't say how many meetings we have to have. We could have one meeting. We could have a couple of meetings on it. However, I think it's important for this committee to be masters of its own business. What we move as a subject to study should be a reflection of what we think is an important issue, and again, I just can't think of one that's more important than indigenous health.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

I appreciate the motion, but you kind of hijacked my agenda. Before we go to that, I just want to go through the things we have to do before we get to a new subject. If that's okay with you, I'll just go through those things.

We still have a few meetings before the pharmacare study is finalized. That's when we come back. We are going to have Bill C-326, drinking water guidelines. It has already been referred to us, so we have to fit that into our schedule sometime. I think it's April, or we have 12 months to do that one. We have to do a study on drinking water before April. Then we have private member's motion M-132, on federally funded health research. We have to do that within a year, just so you know.

We have, coming sooner or later, Bill S-228, which is going to be really interesting. That's food and beverage marketing to children. We have Bill S-5 which is anticipated to come. That's on tobacco packaging. It is going to be another interesting one.

Those are just things we have to do, and then we should talk about a new subject, as Mr. Davies has proposed. Actually, indigenous health was the next one on the priority list that we originally established way back when we had 17. We knocked it down to priorities and that was the next one, along with home care and palliative care, and organ donation, after that.

Now I'm going to go back, and I'm sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Davies—

Tobacco Act

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add my thoughts to this important discussion 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.

One of the most important roles of any government is to protect the health and the safety of its citizens. As Conservatives, we have always taken this very seriously.

The previous Conservative government took a number of steps to improve the health of Canadians by funding and implementing various programs to reduce the smoking rate in Canada. Some of these initiatives included tightening advertising restrictions, banning flavoured cigarettes, which were seen as attractive to children, and introducing regulations for larger and updated warning labels. In fact, under the previous Conservative government, smoking rates among youth aged 15 to 19 decreased to 11%, representing the lowest rate recorded for this age group since Health Canada first reported smoking prevalence.

We invested over $650 million to reduce the smoking rate across all ages and partnered with the Canadian Cancer Society, providing it $5 million in partnership to launch the “Break it Off” tobacco cessation campaign to encourage young adults to quit smoking. These were positive concrete steps that were taken to help Canadians lead healthier lives, but Bill S-5 goes in a totally different direction.

As it is currently written, Bill S-5 plans to make two key changes to the Tobacco Act. The first change is to introduce a framework into the Tobacco Act that would regulate vaping products. The second key change is to implement plain packaging requirements for tobacco products.

I understand the stated goal behind Bill S-5 is to protect the health and safety of Canadians and to reduce youth smoking. However, as I read it, the bill quite frankly could do much more harm than good.

As I mentioned, Bill S-5 plans to implement plain packaging regulations that will see the outside packaging for cigarettes standardized as well as the cigarette stick itself. That means there will be no branding whatsoever. As a result, people who choose to smoke will not be able to tell one brand from another, either from the package or from the cigarette. Nor, indeed, will they be able to tell whether they have bought a legal product. In fact, law enforcement agencies will not be able to tell the difference either.

The government claims that this is designed to make the cigarettes less attractive to young people. That will in turn lower the youth smoking rate. I am concerned, on a number of fronts, that this portion of the legislation in particular will have just the opposite result.

My first concern is the impact that the plain packaging regulations could have on the contraband tobacco market in Canada. The reason why this market is a concern is that it is unregulated, unlicensed, and untaxed. Not only does the government lose an estimated $2 billion a year in taxes from the sale of illegal cigarettes, but the money that is made off them is used to fund very highly organized crime in Canada and abroad.

There are parts of our great country where contraband tobacco is big business. In some areas, it is reliably estimated that as much as 80% of cigarettes smoked are contraband. I am not exaggerating in the least when I say that there are also areas where the illegal cross-border trade of cigarettes between Canada and the U.S. is a serious and sometimes even a deadly business. That is how big the stakes are.

What does plain packaging have to do with contraband tobacco? By having a generic package for all cigarettes, it will make it much easier for contraband producers both to counterfeit and also to sell their own product, with little chance of getting caught.

This leads me to a second issue surrounding the safety of Canadians and their right to know what they are ingesting.

As the contraband tobacco market is unregulated, there is no way to determine, much less control, the chemical make-up of its cigarettes. Because the packaging and the cigarette stick will be indistinguishable from one brand to the next, Canadians who choose to smoke will not only be unable to tell whether they are receiving their brand, but they will also be unable to determine whether they are receiving legal, counterfeit, or a contraband product. Since there is no way to control what chemicals are actually in these cigarettes, this could result in negative health impacts for Canadians and cause even more harm instead of reducing it. Believe me, some contraband cigarettes have been known to have some rather nasty stuff in them.

To get back to the government's stated goal of harm reduction, I also have a serious concern regarding the wording within the legislation that bans companies from saying that one product is less harmful than another. For example, the harmful chemicals that enter a person's body when smoking do so mostly once the cigarette is ignited. There are currently products available that simply heat the tobacco instead of igniting it, which significantly reduces exposure to much of the harmful chemicals. These products have been proven to be significant aids to quitting smoking. However, if this legislation passes, Canadians will not even get to know about these products.

The second half of this legislation deals with vaping products, which have also been deemed to be a less harmful alternative to smoking. However, as consumers, Canadians would be unable to know that these products are less harmful for them because of the advertising ban that would ensue if this legislation is passed.

For a bill that is focused on harm reduction, it seems illogical that companies or even Health Canada would not be allowed to educate Canadians if there are less harmful alternatives out there.

In addition, the government claims that switching to plain packaging will decrease the smoking rate. My concern here is twofold. Throughout my research, and through consultation with a number of stakeholders, I have been unable to find reliable statistics that prove that implementing plain packaging reduces the urge for youth to start smoking. In my experience, they do not try smoking because they see a package and think it looks cool. In many parts of Canada, they cannot see the package anyway because by law it is hidden from view in stores. Rather, they try it because their friends are doing it, or because it is easy to access.

We all want to go home for the weekend, so I will spare everyone from going into the litany of problems in this bill, and how it contrasts with what the Liberals are putting forward in their marijuana legislation.

Back to my second concern, which is if we implement plain packaging and end up fuelling the contraband market we could actually see an increase in the rate of youth smoking as a result of accessibility. One of the reasons why contraband tobacco continues to be popular is because of its low cost. In fact, in many areas where contraband tobacco is sold, a person can buy a Baggie of 200 cigarettes for about $10 compared to buying the legal product for well over $100 for the same quantity. People buy the cheaper product to save money.

A lot of young people do not have the means to purchase $100 worth of cigarettes, but they may have the means to purchase cigarettes at $10. Therefore, if the contraband market is allowed to flourish, youth could quite conceivably have even more access to cigarettes as a result of their low cost.

As I said earlier, I understand and I even support the stated goal, but I have very serious issues with the path that the Liberals are taking to get there.

In closing, I ask that the members of this House consider the very real and serious concerns that I have outlined today and take them into consideration when developing their own thoughts about the bill, and that they think of my speech when Bill S-5 is discussed at committee.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I will be sharing my time with the member for Haldimand—Norfolk.

I am addressing Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Tobacco Act and the Non-smokers’ Health Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. The possible implications of this bill are not conclusive but should be investigated by the Standing Committee on Health.

Our party strongly supports reducing smoking among all Canadians, especially our youth. This has been reflected in the numerous policies we put forward while in government.

Vaping, which is often considered a healthier alternative to smoking, is addressed in this bill. Although it may be healthier, nicotine is still an addictive substance, which requires public education on the associated risks and numerous regulations on access. Establishing plain packaging policies for tobacco products is one of the other primary components of this bill.

There is currently conflicting research on the market impacts of this bill, and therefore there should be thorough studies obtained. We need to ensure that this bill will in fact do what it is intended to do: lower smoking rates. We must also consider alternative tobacco products. Although some may be substantially healthier than smoking, the industry has been unable to demonstrate that or market these products to consumers, because they are considered tobacco products. This dilemma should be explored.

Smoking is harmful, and we are proud to support policies that reduce the rate of smoking in Canada. The previous Conservative government introduced numerous measures to curb smoking rates. These included larger, updated warning labels; the banning of flavours attractive to children; the removal of loopholes exploited by large tobacco companies; and heightened regulations on advertising. As a result of these policies, we were able to get Canada to an all-time low smoking rate, I am proud to say. Smoking rates for adolescent males dropped by almost 40%, and by 44% for adolescent females. We believe that these fortunate declines in smoking rates among adolescents were a direct result of these policies.

We strongly believe in the health and safety of all Canadians and further minimizing smoking, and vaping may be an opportunity to do so.

The safety of vaping has had minimal research. However, it is certainly a large improvement over conventional cigarettes. The smoke of conventional cigarettes contains significantly more dangerous substances, many of which are carcinogenic, including tar, benzene, cadmium, and arsenic. Although e-cigarettes have been found to contain levels of cancer-causing compounds, such as nitrosamines and formaldehyde, the level at which these chemicals are found are about a thousand times lower than they are in conventional cigarettes. Some studies have even proven that vaping has the ability to assist individuals in quitting smoking. Because some e-cigarettes come with assorted amounts of nicotine, individuals are able to gradually step down their intake and eventually quit completely.

With the legalization of nicotine in vaping products such as e-cigarettes, education and research are imperative. Nicotine is still a harmful substance, even if it is not smoked. According to Health Canada, nicotine increases heart rate and blood pressure, constricts blood vessels, lowers the body temperature of the extremities, alters brain waves, and relaxes muscles, not to mention that it is a highly addictive substance. With addictive substances, individuals are prone to withdrawal symptoms up to a month following quitting. These symptoms include dizziness and shakiness, headaches, anxiety and irritability, nervousness and restlessness, difficulty concentrating and sleeping, increased appetite, slight depression or feeling down, and increased cravings.

We need to ensure that sufficient education is done on the risks associated with nicotine. Most individuals know that smoking is hazardous and causes cancer, but the public must also understand the risks associated with other nicotine technologies.

The bill also intends to implement plain packaging for the tobacco industry, similar to what was employed by Australia. However, Australia had inconsistent results following their implementation in 2012. Essentially, it removed trademarks, logos, non-prescribed colours and graphics, allowing only the use of a brand name and a prescribed size and font. When Australia reviewed the policy in 2016 to determine if smoking rates had declined, some experts observed that there was nothing statistically significant to suggest that smoking rates had lowered as a result of applying plain packaging to tobacco products.

Although plain packaging has had a negligible impact on smoking rates, it has had a major impact on market dynamics. Since it is now more difficult to tell the difference between tobacco brands, the price of cigarettes has become more of a determining factor. There has been a marked drop in the sale of premium brands and a marked increase in the sale of lesser known brands. Many premium brands have been taken off the market and become obsolete.

According to some reports, contraband tobacco has also become more popular since plain packaging policies have come into effect. However, professionals in the field actively dispute this supposed rise in popularity because the reports in question were commissioned by tobacco companies and are most likely biased.

The Canadian Cancer Society does not believe that plain packaging has led to an increased use of contraband tobacco and it maintains that Canada's advanced tax stamp system prevents counterfeiting.

Technological advancements also make us reflect on what is included in the definition of tobacco products and vaping products. The bill seeks to recognize that vaping products are a healthier alternative to tobacco products. It also recognizes that there are some so-called tobacco products, at least technically, that the scientific community regards as healthier alternatives.

The Standing Committee on Health needs to examine the possibility of allowing businesses to promote those products to consumers, or at least to people who have no intention of quitting smoking.

The United Kingdom and New Zealand expanded the scope of their definition regarding healthier alternatives that could replace nicotine and tobacco use. A wide range of replacement products can be found all around the world, including heat-not-burn cigarettes, moist smokeless tobacco, and nicotine soluble and inhalable products.

We must look at the potential impact of the sale and promotion of these products to target groups. We must make sure that Canadians are familiar with alternatives to using tobacco, particularly people who have no desire to quit smoking. If they manage to adopt a healthier habit, this will likely help bring down health care costs in Canada, which could also increase efficiency.

There is a lot to consider with the bill and it is imperative that answers are provided to the unknowns I have just mentioned. Consequently, I suggest the bill to go to committee to receive a compressive examination. As parliamentarians, we have a duty to do our best at improving the health of Canadians. I believe the bill, with proper oversight, has the potential to do so.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP has no complaints about Bill S-5 and supports it at second reading. The purpose of the bill is to create a new legislative framework for regulating vaping products and implement plain and standardized packaging.

We have long called for effective, concrete anti-tobacco measures to discourage young people from starting to smoke. The NDP is clearly a leader on this front. We have long called for plain packaging and a regulatory framework for vaping products.

In 2009, the former health critic, the member for Winnipeg North, introduced a bill to close loopholes in the Tobacco Act by tightening requirements for the labelling, packaging, and sale of flavoured tobacco products. In the last election campaign, we promised to introduce anti-smoking measures, increase funding for anti-smoking strategies, implement plain packaging, and ban all flavoured tobaccos.

We also talked about the need to initiate a federal review to strengthen Canada's tobacco control legislation and strategy, which expires in 2018. It is clear that our demands were heard because it is now illegal to use flavourings and additives in tobacco products, even though the Conservatives did not weigh in on the tobacco issue during the 2015 election campaign. We also hope that the government will support this bill, and that we will be able to work together to implement it and improve the health of Canadians.

According to the Canadian Community Health Survey published in March 2017, over 5 million Canadians aged 12 and older smoke either daily or occasionally. Over 18% of Quebec residents smoke, exceeding the national average. In response to the 2015 report of the Standing Committee on Health, this bill would effectively combat smoking and vaping, particularly among youth. This would have a positive impact on Canadians' health, especially lung health.

Smoking is the leading cause of disease and premature death in Canada. The annual health care cost per smoker in Canada is over $3,000, which adds up to $17 billion a year. If passed, this bill could save money by reducing smoking rates in Canada. Studies show that people with a psychiatric disorder are two to four times more likely to smoke than the general population. More than 80% of those with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder are smokers.

There is no doubt that tobacco causes serious illnesses and a number of problems that can lead to death. One Canadian dies from tobacco-related illness every 14 minutes. That is unacceptable. This is why we are supporting this bill and why we are urging the other parties to do the same. Anti-smoking groups rightly point out that the longer we wait to pass a bill like this one, the more people will start to smoke and the more people will die from the consequences of tobacco use.

This bill would rename the Tobacco Act as the “tobacco and vaping products act”. Vaping is a more recent problem, and we must regulate the use of these products. Vaping products are indeed less harmful than cigarettes. According to a study by Public Health England, e-cigarettes are estimated to be 95% less harmful than tobacco and could help smokers stop smoking. E-cigarettes are the most well-known and most popular vaping product. They first appeared in Canada in 2007.

Although there are regulations in place, it is difficult to restrict access to e-cigarettes. There is no evidence as of yet indicating that e-cigarettes encourage young people and non-smokers to start consuming nicotine. However, we still lack information on these and other vaping products, since they are new to the market. These products and their different flavours may seem enticing, especially to young people.

The 2015 Canadian tobacco, alcohol and drugs survey found that nearly 15% of Canadians aged 15 and older have already tried e-cigarettes, an increase over the percentage reported in 2013.

If this bill is passed, the ban on tobacco sales to persons under the age of 18 will also be extended to vaping products, and it will also be illegal to promote vaping products by referencing specific flavour descriptions or ingredients that suggest health benefits, because this would be considered false advertising.

It will also be illegal to promote vaping products to young people using tobacco brands or information-based advertising. Labels on these products must carry warnings regarding their nicotine content and the health problems they can cause.

These measures are less restrictive than those applied to tobacco, since these products are considered less harmful for now. However, the United States Food and Drug Administration has grouped vaping products and tobacco products together under one regulation. It is vital that vaping products do not become a new source of nicotine addiction, that they are used only to reduce the harmful effects of smoking, and that young people's access to them is restricted. That is why this bill creates a regulatory framework for these products.

Linda Bauld, a British cancer prevention research expert, said that free stop smoking services are the most effective way to quit, but she recognized that e-cigarettes may help many people stop smoking.

The only downside to this bill is the fact that vaping product manufacturers will be able to promote their products everywhere, which is bound to attract young teens. Some provinces and territories, including Quebec, have different, stricter rules about this. In Quebec, vaping products can be advertised only in newspapers and magazines aimed at adults, not children. Bill S-5 will have to harmonize with provincial laws on that score.

Vaping products may help reduce tobacco consumption, but it is important to remember that using them does not break the smoking habit. Maison Alcôve, a well-known addiction treatment centre in Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, made it clear that the only way a smoker will stop smoking is by breaking those habits, those daily rituals. Smoking an e-cigarette is still smoking. Using vaping products to reduce tobacco consumption has limitations we need to consider.

If this bill passes, manufacturers would be required to submit to the Minister of Health information on sales and the ingredients in the vaping products, to ensure follow-up. The 2015 report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health regarding vaping contained 14 recommendations, including one to create a legislative framework for vaping products. This bill follows on those recommendations.

Bill S-5 would also require plain packaging for tobacco products, a requirement Australia enacted in 2012, followed by France and the U.K. in 2016. The NDP wants us to adopt the strictest packaging system in the world in order to combat the effects of tobacco on the health of Canadians. This measure is also being considered by many countries such as South Africa, Sweden, and Singapore. It is one of the measures we promised to implement during the 2015 election campaign.

Plain packaging is an effective way to reduce tobacco use, dissuade young people from smoking in the first place, and limit exposure to second-hand smoke, which can have an adverse effect on non-smokers. Plain packaging would also help standardize the appearance and format of all tobacco products and get rid of logos and trademarks. The colours on the packaging would be neutral and health warnings would always be included. Plain packaging has been proven to make health warnings more effective.

Canadians will therefore be better informed of the health risks of tobacco and will be more aware that it is a dangerous product.

Just look at the impact that plain packaging had in Australia and you can see that this measure is essential to reducing tobacco use. Australia experienced the largest-ever decline after plain packaging was introduced. According to David Hammond, from the University of Waterloo, plain packaging resulted in more than 100,000 fewer Australian smokers. If plain packaging were to have the same impact in Canada, that would translate to 190,000 fewer smokers. These figures were taken from 100 different scientific studies. Scientific evidence shows that plain packaging would help significantly lower the number of smokers.

Fourteen studies on the impact of plain packaging in Australia were published in a British Medical Journal supplement. All of these studies found that plain packaging makes cigarettes less attractive to young people, and it did not lead to increased use of tobacco or contraband tobacco. Instead, the initiative pushed smokers to try to stop. Plain packaging makes tobacco less appealing.

According to research carried out in the Australian state of Victoria, smokers perceive plain-packaged cigarettes to be lower in quality and therefore less satisfying. As a result, they are more likely to consider quitting. Tobacco packages are currently designed to be appealing and eye-catching to make consumers forget that tobacco is a deadly and addictive product. I agree with Rob Cunningham, a senior policy analyst for the Canadian Cancer Society, who said that it is wrong for an addictive, deadly product like tobacco to be marketed in packages that are designed to be attractive. This is clearly not normal.

This bill would put an end to this practice by introducing plain packaging requirements. This measure has received the support of many organizations and associations, such as the Canadian Coalition for Action on Tobacco, a group with many members who specialize in the issue of tobacco use and tobacco-related diseases. The coalition's representatives provided a committee with a document demonstrating that plain packaging has the support of more than 340 organizations across the country. A coalition of over 200 Quebec organizations, including the City of Montreal and the Quebec division of the Canadian Cancer Society, has also expressed support for plain and standardized packaging. This shows that this measure is universally supported.

Some people might be concerned about the problem of counterfeiting plain packaging. We can look to Australia for an example, where neither the Australian border services agency nor the tobacco industry identified any counterfeiting problems since plain packaging was introduced. Investigations even found the opposite, that is, fewer instances of counterfeit packaging of foreign brands. As for the concerns of convenience store owners, once again using Australia as an example, studies found that Australian retailers quickly adapted to the new measures regarding plain packaging and that cigarette pack retrieval times did not really increase at all.

The bill also contains other provisions. Indeed, the Non-smokers' Health Act, which seeks to protect those in federally-regulated workplaces, will be amended to ensure that vaping products are subject to the same prohibitions as tobacco products.

Bill S-5 also harmonizes compliance and enforcement authorities with those found in other modern statutes, including the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act. These authorities would apply to both vaping and tobacco products. This would allow inspectors to use telewarrants and enter private property in carrying out an inspection, while accompanied by any person qualified to conduct the inspection. They could also require manufacturers to keep records, and stop or move any means of transportation for the purpose of inspection.

The Senate adopted 10 amendments to Bill S-5. Eight of them are largely technical. One amendment requires the Minister of Health to undertake a review of the operations of the act and to table a report in both houses of Parliament.

The final amendment would make menthol and cloves prohibited additives in all tobacco products.

I want to emphasize the fact that disadvantaged and marginalized populations are the easiest targets and, unfortunately, they tend to consume more tobacco than the general population. They are also more likely to suffer from tobacco-related diseases. For example, 40% of first nations people smoke, and 37% of people who are divorced or separated smoke. We can no longer allow these groups to be targeted. That is why we have to focus our anti-smoking programs and services on them. We have to implement strategic measures to improve social conditions and reduce the social and environmental factors that promote tobacco use. The end goal is to reduce the gap in health status between general and disadvantaged populations caused by serious tobacco-related diseases.

Canada needs to get with the times and look to laws passed in Australia, France, England, and other countries that have implemented plain packaging, prohibited the use of terms with positive connotations that encourage people to use tobacco, and regulated the use of e-cigarettes and vaping products.

Youth are also affected by this. Young people usually start smoking during adolescence. They are an easy target because they are easily influenced and find the packaging appealing.

This bill will make it possible to minimize tobacco use and nicotine addictions among young people. As a result, it will also reduce the percentage of smokers.

In 2014, at the Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention, the World Health Organization urged its member countries to pay particular attention to young people and vulnerable groups when it comes to tobacco.

The main goal of this bill is to protect young people by discouraging them from smoking and by giving adults access to tobacco substitutes, such as vaping products. Passing this bill would be a major step forward in reducing tobacco use and would improve the health of Canadians.

It would be very unfortunate if this bill were not passed because we really need regulations and measures like the ones set out in Bill S-5 to successfully reduce tobacco use. However, we also need to make young people aware that they can choose not to use tobacco. We need to get them to think about what they are taking into their bodies and make sure that they know how to say no.

Parents also need to be educated about this, so that they stop trivializing smoking and realize that, yes, smoking is dangerous.

An organization in my riding called Satellite and one in Acton Vale called Horizon soleil are tyring to educate younger kids about these issues beginning in elementary school. Education will have a stronger impact and must go hand in hand with passing Bill S-5 in order to effectively reduce the number of smokers in Canada.

I have discussed this bill with some of the stakeholder organizations in my riding, including the ones I just mentioned, Satellite and Horizon soleil, which start educating children in elementary school, as well as their teachers and parents, regarding the harmful effects of using tobacco and the importance of not using it as teenagers, and especially not in elementary school. We really need to have a strict law, because young people are drawn to these products, with their colourful packages and different flavours. We need to make sure they do not ever start smoking. We all know people in our lives who want to stop using tobacco. We know how hard it is. We need to focus on prevention so that they do not start using tobacco.

As I was saying in my speech, I have spoken with stakeholders and the director of Maison l'alcôve, a very reputable addiction prevention centre in my riding. They were saying how hard it is to address this problem because it is a matter of breaking daily habits.

My NDP colleagues and I would like this bill to be passed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Tobacco Act and the Non-smokers’ Health Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Tobacco and Vaping Products Act

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here today to speak to Bill S-5, an act to amend the Tobacco Act and the Non-smokers’ Health Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts. There are two parts to the bill. One speaks to the plain packaging issue and the rest to vaping.

I am going to take my usual approach and say what I like about the bill and what I do not like, and then discuss things I think we should consider as we move the bill forward.

I am very proud of the Conservative Party's record on reducing tobacco smoking. When the Conservative government implemented measures in this area, the number of young people in Canada smoking tobacco was cut in half. That is admirable. Smoking rates overall under our government fell to an all-time low of 13%. I think everyone in the House would admit that we know that smoking is harmful. We want to reduce the number of people smoking and the harmful effects associated with it. However, that is not the only consideration in the bill. We also need to make sure that we reduce the crime involved in all of the things the bill addresses. We need to be concerned as well about any of the economic impacts we might see as the bill is implemented.

With respect to the vaping industry, it is possible that people are not very familiar with vaping. I had a number of people in the industry come to me and demonstrate all the neat devices one can use to take either glycol, water, or some additives and heat them to a vapour that one can inhale. A number of things are being vaped. In some cases, people use vaping to get off smoking. They start with a concentrated nicotine liquid and over time reduce the concentration of that nicotine liquid. The act of vaping sort of satisfies their smoking need, and over time they actually can quit smoking.

In addition to that, there are different flavours that have been allowed. People are vaping flavours for different reasons, some to get off smoking, and some to address other situations. Folks who are diabetic or morbidly obese apparently prefer to vape something that has a sweet flavour to it, because then they are not really receiving any calories but are addressing one of their compulsive needs.

This is the information that has been shared with me by the vaping industry. On the other hand, the vaping industry today is totally unregulated. That is a problem, because in Canada we regulate pretty much everything else: food, drugs, etc. We are also concerned about vaping products getting into the hands of children, so we would like to see the industry regulated. That is a part of the bill I do like. We need to regulate this industry. The recommendation to only make making vaping products available to those over 18 is a very good idea.

We also need to make sure that as we deal with this, we take into consideration all of the different types of devices. This is an area where the technology is changing. One of the points raised earlier was that e-cigarettes need to be in this category. However, even within the tobacco industry, there is growing science to reduce harm. Therefore, one of the products that is not currently addressed by this legislation, but needs to be addressed somewhere, is nicotine sticks, the actual tobacco sticks that are heated. They are not being combusted. It is not a smoking phenomenon; it is a heating phenomenon. The research that has been done by that industry shows there is a 75% harm reduction from these products. Somewhere, these products need to be addressed, but they are not really addressed today by this legislation. I have heard some conversation suggesting that they would remain under the tobacco part of the legislation, but that would not give them a fair playing field, because they would be competing with the vaping products.

The vaping products that are out there need to be regulated. We need to be concerned about how these things will be promoted and sold. Today, unregulated vaping shops have arisen. The regular convenience stores are not able to get into that market, so the input from the Canadian Convenience Stores Association is that whatever rules are put in place, they would like to be able to partake and participate in that market. That is a reasonable concern.

One of the studies done in the U.K. on vaping shows a 95% reduction in harm from vaping over smoking regular tobacco. This is definitely moving in the direction of reduced harm. I am concerned that if we are too restrictive about advertising those benefits, it might be a mistake. We want people to stop smoking. That is one of the main drivers of all the things we are talking about today, so that is something that needs to be considered as well.

I will move on to the plain packaging side of the story. The history of that is an implementation that was done in Australia. The outcomes were twofold. One, there was a slight reduction in the number of people smoking tobacco. I believe there were 100,000 fewer people smoking tobacco over a three-year period. However, there was an increase in contraband. Australia does not produce its own tobacco. It imports everything. Within that, contraband grew from 10% to 26%. That is concerning, especially when we look at how that compares to Canada.

We have quite a contraband problem in the tobacco industry in Canada. In fact, in Ontario, it is estimated that 40% to 60% of cigarettes sold are contraband. I know in my own riding, there are smoke shops literally everywhere where people can buy illegal contraband tobacco. It is simply not being enforced by the police today. Many of the first nations in my riding are the ones putting forward this product. I understand the sensitivity of that.

If we are going to go to plain packaging, there are consumer health considerations, because there have been numerous complaints about the content of some of this contraband tobacco. We have heard stories about dirt, sweepings, and animal manure. From a quality control point of view, as was pointed out earlier, if a cigarette has absolutely no markings on it, we have no idea if it was made by a well-regulated industry or if it was made in someone's barn. That is a concern for me. We have a lot of regulation in every other area of food and drugs, and this should be no different.

The other thing that is sort of hypocritical on the part of the government has to do with a discussion I participated in on the health committee with respect to marijuana and whether plain packaging would be appropriate for it. To start, organized crime is already participating in this market. There is lovely packaging, with all kinds of colours, and people are becoming brand loyal, especially in the edibles market. The idea was that if plain packaging was introduced, it would not be competitive with what is already in place from organized crime. The discussion was that they would not move to plain packaging.

I do not know how one could make that argument on that side and not on the tobacco side, with a 40% contraband market in Ontario, and I believe, about 30% across the country. That bears a bit of discussion, because what we are really talking about is competing harms. There is the harm reduction we are going to get from going to plain packaging for smoking versus the harm increase from not having quality control for that product, plus the harm from the organized crime interactions. We have to take a bit of a holistic view when we look at that.

A number of organizations are weighing in on this legislation. We looked to the Canadian Cancer Society and the Heart and Stroke Foundation for their input on this.

The Canadian Cancer Society said, “We applaud the federal government's commitment to implement plain and standardized packaging for tobacco and are writing to encourage speedy adoption of the regulations. Plain packaging for tobacco products would prevent tobacco companies from using packs as mini billboards promoting tobacco.

“Despite the fact that smoking rates have declined by more than half, tobacco use remains the leading preventable cause of disease and death in Canada, killing 37,000 Canadians every year. We're deeply concerned by Canada's unacceptable high rates of smoking, especially among youth.

“Health Canada's tobacco strategy expires in March 18. I urge you to strengthen this strategy through better funding to allow for stronger initiatives and greater impact through modernization of the outdated federal Tobacco Act, that is almost 20 years old, and through the speedy adoption of plain-packaging regulations.”

We see that these organizations see some merit in plain packaging, but obviously, they share similar concerns about controlling quality. It may be that we want to have some kind of government-approved mark on cigarettes that would at least allow the consumer to differentiate between something that is contraband and something that is not. That said, we know that those in organized crime are quite clever, and if we put a mark on something, they could easily copy it. We see that we even have counterfeit money, so that may not fix that concern.

Some of the other things I want to talk about have to do with the recommendations specific to packaging. There was discussion about having an optional alphanumeric code used for product identification. I think it should actually not be optional. It would mean there would be a number system on each cigarette, with letters referring either to Canada or to the province or territory where it is sold, such as AB for Alberta, or CA overall, or CA-ON for Canada-Ontario. Having a set of numbers would be another prevention tactic that could be used to try to keep contraband out of the market. It is worth considering.

Bill S-5 also would not allow the tobacco industry to introduce the harm-reducing products it is coming forward with under the vaping legislation. They would be required to be under the tobacco legislation, which is more onerous, from a product introduction point of view. That includes getting products approved, getting products added to the list, and the amount of scientific evidence businesses have to bring about health and other impacts, including environmental. I would say that there needs to be a fairer playing field between them.

Let us talk a bit about marijuana, because the government is intending to legalize marijuana in July 2018. It seems to me that it is a totally hypocritical approach. We are trying to modernize regulations about smoking, and the Liberals, even though they want to reduce smoking, have added marijuana smoking to the list of things they want to do.

I am certain that the Liberals would want to bring amendments to this bill that would include marijuana so that it is clear, because people are vaping marijuana, and they are smoking marijuana. Both are harmful. The Canadian Medical Association has come out with studies that show the harm to young people as their brains are developing. They see a 30% increase in schizophrenia, psychotic disorders, depression, anxiety, and addiction in young people who consume marijuana once a week. If we are talking about reducing overall harm, it would be a concern to me to bring marijuana into this whole thing. That speaks again to having measures in place to make sure that young people do not get hold of these products.

At convenience stores today, cigarettes are kept behind the counter. People cannot see them. I am not sure that on top of that we actually need plain packaging. People cannot see the packaging, so I do not think those who are smoking are really buying cigarettes on brand loyalty. Considerations that might be important are actually more about regulating size. Companies have started to come out with slender packs of cigarettes, with cigarettes that are skinnier and that come in little ladylike packages. Even if they make the package plain, allowing that different size gives the illusion that somehow smoking will make people skinny. I do not know that this is always true, although we do see quite often that when people stop smoking, they gain weight, so there might be something to it.

I think that is certainly an enticement, and for women who want to carry cigarettes around in their purse, it is quite convenient. It is an incentive to smoke. We want to look at all those things and say that perhaps that is not the right idea.

We also need to give consideration to the existing industry. In Canada, we have a number of tobacco producers, and they have seen job losses over the years. They recognize that eventually we want to eliminate all smoking. However, they have an export business, and there is a demand out there. Therefore, we need to be sensitive to the impact on jobs. One of the questions their representatives asked me when they came to visit had to do with their ability to produce a colourful package to export. It is not clear in this legislation whether that would be allowed, because we would only allow the production of plain packaging. There would have to be some sort of exemption to allow them to continue to supply cigarettes for export. Otherwise, it would hurt their businesses, and obviously there would be job reductions. That is an economic concern.

There are also members who have tobacco growers in their ridings who will be concerned about the impact of any changes that come out of this bill. We need to give consideration to that as well.

There is a lot to consider and discuss in this bill. There are some good things in the bill, such as the fact that the vaping industry would be regulated, and we would be able to put in some protections to make sure that children were not accessing vaping products. We would be able to make sure that retailers that cannot participate in the industry could start to participate, which could be a good outcome.

However, we see that on the plain packaging side, there are a lot of inconsistencies. There is inconsistency in the approach we would use for marijuana versus tobacco. There are concerns about quality control and how we would make sure to protect consumers from contraband versus the well-regulated and quality-controlled production of cigarettes. There is the whole area of the new technology and trying to create a fair playing field for that.

I am impressed to see the tobacco companies coming forward with multiple generations of new products that are not smoked tobacco that are used to get people to ultimately reduce their nicotine intake and get off this drug. However, right now the constraints on them, because they are regulated as smoked tobacco products, are not helping them move in the right direction, which is the direction we want to see people go. We want people to stop smoking. We know that smoking is one of the leading causes of death in Canada. We want to make sure that we do everything we can to help the industry as we transition to products that transition Canadians from smoking.

At the same time, we need to make sure that we do not incentivize young Canadians with the marijuana legislation that is being introduced, which includes the message that kids aged 12 to 17 can possess up to five grams. That is the wrong message. There are a lot of children and young people who do not understand that marijuana is harmful to them. We need to get that public education message out there. We need to make sure that we control all these products so that when they start to be used with marijuana, there are not unintended consequences. I do not think there is a lot of research, for example, on the concentration of marijuana one can vape safely. I think that is an area of concern, especially when we see some of the contaminated supplies of marijuana that exist and that probably will continue to exist.

For all of those reasons, I think there is enough good in this bill that it is worth talking about. However, as members can see, there are a lot of areas of concern that would have to be sorted out at committee. As one of the members of the health committee, I look forward to helping sort through them to see whether we can address these issues and come out with a bill that, at the end of the day, will do more good for Canadians than harm.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I would like to ask him whether Bill S-5 provides for plain packaging for all tobacco products or whether he thinks exceptions will be made for certain products, such as cigars weighing more than 1.4 g, as is done in some other countries that have plain or standardized packaging.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be here to begin the second reading debate 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.

Bill S-5 was introduced into the other place last November by Senator Petitclerc. My sincere thanks to the senator for helping advance this legislation, and to the members of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology for their work in reviewing this bill.

All members of this House are aware of the dangers associated with tobacco use. They also know that reducing the use of tobacco has been a primary public health goal of governments, at all levels, for decades.

My colleagues should also know that tobacco use is a significant economic burden on this country as well. It cost Canadian society approximately $16.2 billion as of 2012, the last year for which figures are available. That is $466 for every Canadian. These costs are for health care, responding to tobacco-related fires, policing contraband tobacco, research and prevention, and include lost productivity due to disability and premature death from tobacco use.

Bill S-5 will advance key elements of our government's comprehensive plan to strengthen tobacco control in Canada. These include the establishment of a new framework for regulating vaping products and facilitating the implementation of plain packaging for tobacco products.

Before I lay out details of the bill, I want to set out some broader context, so that members may appreciate the need for strengthening tobacco control and how the bill fits in within the broader health agenda.

When the federal tobacco control strategy was launched in 2001, Canada's tobacco control approaches were regarded as innovative and world leading. As a nation, we established an impressive track record in driving down tobacco use. Indeed, we established ourselves as a world leader in this area. Overall, our smoking rate has fallen, from 22% in 2001, to 13% in 2015. Since the launch of the federal strategy, all the provinces and territories have enacted their own tobacco control legislation and approaches. The combined efforts of federal, provincial, territorial, and municipal governments in tobacco control have been crucial to Canada's success to date. The decline in tobacco use in Canada means that fewer Canadians will die as a result. This is something we can all be proud of. However, we can always do better.

The sad fact is that 4.5 million Canadians still use tobacco. In 2015 alone, 115,000 Canadians became daily smokers. Approximately, 45,000 Canadians will die every year from tobacco-related illness, representing 18% of all Canadian deaths. That is one person every 12 minutes. By the time we finish with this speech, another Canadian will have passed away from a tobacco-related illness. The toll of tobacco-related preventable deaths is unacceptable. Our goal recognizes the need to establish a new regulatory framework, one that is firmly grounded on public health imperatives.

Canada has ceded the mantle of world leader in tobacco control to other countries such as Australia and the United Kingdom. They have been quicker to adapt their tobacco control efforts to address the always-changing strategies that tobacco companies use to recruit new smokers. It is our government's intention to once again make Canada a world leader in tobacco control. That is why we have launched an ambitious tobacco-control agenda. This agenda has four main components.

First, our government published an order amending the Tobacco Act to ban the use of menthol in most tobacco products sold on the Canadian market. Evidence has shown that the use of these products makes tobacco more palatable. Tobacco companies have acted on this by introducing menthol products in far greater numbers. By implementing a ban on menthol, we have acted on the evidence as well. The changes we made expanded flavour restrictions to 95% of the entire tobacco market in Canada, helping to make tobacco products less appealing to youth. With Bill S-5, we are proposing to go further and ban it in 100% of tobacco products.

Second, our government has initiated work to modernize Canada's approach to tobacco control. The federal tobacco control strategy was set to expire on March 31, 2017. We have extended this deadline to March 2018 to allow more time to consult broadly and to fully examine all of the options. This past March, we convened a national forum, at which more than 150 stakeholders and partners discussed the future of tobacco control in Canada. We launched the forum by asking participants how we could best modernize Canada's approach to tobacco control. We also conducted an online public consultation on the future of tobacco control. Reaching our goal will require the support of all Canadians, including stakeholders, provincial, territorial, and municipal governments, and indigenous peoples.

We heard from more than 1,800 individuals and organizations from across Canada. We heard that Canadians are tired of having their health and the health of their loved ones adversely affected by this highly addictive substance. They are ready to take action to prevent young people from taking up smoking, and they are ready to make a commitment to living healthier lives.

Third, our government has committed to implementing plain and standardized packaging for tobacco packages and products and to make them less attractive to our youth and other Canadians. This commitment was identified in the Minister of Health's mandate letter, and its implementation is a priority for our government.

Fourth, we have committed to addressing the growing market for vaping products. Regulating vaping is important to the health of Canadians, particularly in terms of protecting youth and preventing the potential renormalization of smoking. As I said earlier, our tobacco control strategy must remain up to date with the changing product trends.

Having provided details on our government's agenda for tobacco control, I would like now to take this opportunity to provide more details on the key aspects of Bill S-5.

Bill S-5 supports our commitment to implementing plain and standardized packaging for tobacco products. Tobacco packages are powerful promotional vehicles for the industry to communicate brand imagery. Research has shown that plain packaging measures, including the removal of logos, textures, colours, and brand image, help make tobacco products less appealing, especially to youth.

I firmly believe that tobacco companies should not be able to use attractive packaging to market a product that causes devastating, indisputable, and well-documented damage to people's health. Canadians agree, and they are ready to support action by the federal government that would discourage youth from starting to use tobacco products. As such, the bill would support the implementation of plain packaging of tobacco products by providing the authority to develop regulations to enable and facilitate this.

Bill S-5 will also help us respond to the rapid increase we have seen in the popularity of vaping products. Evidence has suggested that these new products, while harmful, would be less harmful than traditional tobacco products, and consequently they have the potential to bring about public health benefits if they reduce tobacco-related death and disease.

For smokers who are unable to quit, switching to a vaping product could be a way to reduce the harm that smoking has on their health and the burden that it places upon society. However, these products could also potentially lead to nicotine addiction to the use of tobacco products, and to the renormalization of smoking behaviour, reversing the gains we have made over the past 30 years.

Recent surveys conducted by Health Canada indicate that 26% of Canadian youth aged 15 to 19 have tried an e-cigarette. This is a concern. Early exposure to nicotine can render an individual more susceptible to nicotine addiction and may have adverse consequences for brain development. Sadly, young people may not recognize the lifelong implications of experimenting with these products. Bill S-5 aims to strike a balance, allowing adult smokers to use vaping products which may provide them with a path away from the more deadly cigarette, while also protecting youth and non-users from being recruited into a lifelong addiction to nicotine.

The legislation proposes to regulate the manufacture, sale, labelling, and promotion of vaping products with and without nicotine, including vaping devices and substances such as e-liquids. The bill would amend the Non-smokers' Health Act to protect those in federally regulated workplaces from the potential harms of second-hand vapour. The bill would also harmonize compliance and enforcement authorities for both tobacco and vaping products with other modern statutes administered by Health Canada.

Bill S-5 also contains provisions aimed specifically at protecting young people from vaping products. For example, the bill would restrict youth access to vaping products by prohibiting the sale of these products to youth under the age of 18. It would protect youth from inducements to using vaping products by prohibiting marketing practices known to be effective at targeting youth.

In these ways, Bill S-5 responds to the recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Health in its report entitled “Vaping: Towards a regulatory framework for e-cigarettes”.

Some people have been critical of Bill S-5 because they want to be able to promote vaping products as reduced-risk products. To address this concern, the other place proposed amendments to Bill S-5 to allow the government, through regulations, to set out exceptions for certain evidence-based statements regarding the relative health risks of vaping products. Once these regulations are in place, manufacturers and retailers would be allowed to use these statements in their promotions for vaping products. At the same time, Canadians would continue to be protected from deceptive or misleading claims on the health hazards of using vaping products.

We will also continue to invest in scientific research to better understand the health impacts of vaping and to gather data on how Canadians are using these products. In fact, Health Canada and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research are already collaborating to regularly generate data on vaping products which is used to inform policy and regulatory decisions.

Let me be clear. The evidence we have today indicates that while it is true that vaping products are less harmful than cigarettes, they are still potentially harmful. Bill S-5 would enable us to have stronger federal oversight to better protect Canadians from the negative health effects associated with using these products. Should Bill S-5 become law, Canada will join the ranks of some 60 countries that have already taken action to specifically regulate vaping products.

These international approaches range from minimal regulation to full bans. Despite these differences, many jurisdictions, including the European Union and the United States, are taking similar approaches to protecting youth from the dangers of nicotine addiction while allowing adult smokers to access vaping products.

In conclusion, the proposed legislation would allow our government to protect the health of Canadians by establishing a new framework for regulating the manufacture, sale, labelling, and advertising of vaping products in a flexible way that could be adjusted as our knowledge of these products evolves.

I would like to reiterate that vaping products are not harmless, and that the evidence on nicotine is clear. It is particularly harmful to young people. Given these facts, our government is committed to taking action and to balancing the needs of Canadians through this legislation.

Bill S-5 takes into consideration both the health harms, and the potential public health benefits of vaping products. It aims to protect youth and non-users of tobacco products from inducements to use tobacco, and it would allow adults to legally access vaping products as a less harmful alternative to tobacco.

Bill S-5 also supports our government's efforts to implement plain and standardized packaging requirements for tobacco products. It is a critical piece of our government's tobacco control agenda. If passed, Bill S-5 would contribute to reducing tobacco use in Canada and allow for the regulation of vaping in a way that protects the health and safety of Canadians.

Our government is committed to charting a new course of action in tobacco control that contributes to our overall vision for a healthy Canada. It is critical that we work together to address one of our most challenging and enduring public health problems. Accordingly, I encourage all members to support Bill S-5 at second reading and refer it to the Standing Committee on Health for further study.

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

moved that Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Tobacco Act and the Non-smokers’ Health Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, this morning we started second reading debate on Bill C-63, the budget implementation act. We will continue debate on this legislation this afternoon.

Tomorrow we will commence second reading debate of Bill S-5, concerning amendments to the Tobacco Act.

On Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday of next week, we shall continue with debate on the budget bill. Last Thursday I indicated to the House that we would allot four days of debate at second reading, which means we would expect the vote to send the bill to committee to take place on Wednesday evening. I would like to thank opposition House leaders for their co-operation in finding agreement on this timeline.

On Thursday, we will resume debate on Bill C-45 on cannabis, and hope to conclude the debate at report stage. We will also be working to pass Bill C-17 on the Yukon before the next constituency week.

Motions in Amendment

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak in support of Bill C-45, the cannabis act, and the amendments that I and my fellow colleagues on the health committee introduced.

Back in August, I held a town hall in my riding regarding the legalization and regulation of cannabis. Not only am I in support of this legislation, but so are many of my constituents. Teachers, parents, and seniors, groups the loyal opposition regularly lists as being concerned about the legalization of cannabis, have all approached me either at my town hall or by contacting my office about their concerns.

They have concerns that a youth who makes a mistake by possessing a small amount of cannabis may be thrown in prison; concerns that this youth will have to carry a criminal record for the remainder of his or her life and that it will hinder the ability to find employment and lead a regular life; concerns that fellow citizens are unknowingly ingesting products that could be laced with dangerous substances; and concerns that the prohibition of cannabis is not helping to fight drugs but instead allows criminal elements to terrorize communities and profit, just like they did during the American prohibition of alcohol. These are the concerns of my constituents.

As a member of the health committee, I spent several weeks intensely reviewing this legislation. This included a week of back-to-back meetings where we heard testimony from over 100 witnesses. Most of these witnesses were in favour of legalizing and regulating cannabis.

This legislation strikes a balance between addressing the need to end prohibition while addressing the challenges other jurisdictions faced when regulating cannabis.

Bill C-45 would allow an adult to possess up to 30 grams in public, a measure that would ensure that no one would be criminalized for possessing a reasonable amount of cannabis, while ensuring that those who continue to illicitly sell cannabis on the street would be charged.

The legislation would allow home cultivation, with up to four plants per residence, an amount that is within reason for an individual while making it unfeasible for criminal elements to profit. This bill would also protect consumers by implementing industry-wide rules and standards for basic things such as sanitary production requirements, restrictions on the use of unauthorized pesticides, product testing, and restrictions on the use of ingredients and additives. We would create a framework so that Canadians could trust that the products they purchased would be safe and free of dangerous chemicals or substances, without having to take a criminal's word at face value.

As a physician who has spent over 20 years in the emergency room, I have treated patients who unknowingly ingested what they thought was just cannabis. This is indeed a concern worth resolving, and I applaud the government's commitment to the health and safety of Canadians.

This legislation would also protect youth by creating a framework for a minimum age of purchase of 18, through licensed retailers; requiring childproof packaging and warning labels; and providing for public education and awareness campaigns about the dangers associated with cannabis.

I will add that yesterday the government announced a new investment of $36.4 million over the next five years for an education and awareness campaign. This investment is in addition to the funding announced in budget 2017, bringing the total investment in education and awareness to $46 million.

The act would also prohibit products or packaging that were appealing to youth; selling cannabis through a self-service display or vending machine; and promoting cannabis, except in the narrowest of circumstances where the promotion could not be seen by a young person.

This act would also create two new criminal convictions to protect youth by making it illegal to give or sell cannabis to a youth and to use a youth to commit a cannabis-related offence. This bill also has a provision that would protect youth who made a mistake when in possession of five grams of cannabis or less to ensure that they would not carry a criminal record for the rest of their lives.

I want take a moment to address the notion raised by the opposition that we are normalizing cannabis use among youth. The truth is that cannabis use in Canada has already been normalized. With the second highest rate of youth usage in the world, it is obvious that the current system does not work. We need to stop focusing on a prohibitionist model for cannabis, hoping to get a different result in the future. We need to use an evidence-based approach that restricts access to youth while removing the financial incentives that embolden criminal elements.

I would like to touch on another item the opposition regularly states, which is that vehicle collisions and fatalities in jurisdictions that have legalized recreational cannabis have increased. This statement is incorrect. While statistics before and after legalization indicate an increase in impaired driving, public safety officials in the states of Washington and Colorado are in agreement that this apparent increase was the result of improved detection methods.

In a letter from the Governor and the Attorney General of the State of Washington addressed to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, they wrote:

...several of the statistics quoted in your letter on the increasing incidence of marijuana DUIs are distorted by the fact that the testing regime has changed with state legalization. Any amount of drugged driving and collisions is too high. Prior to marijuana legalization, blood testing for THC at suspected DUI traffic stops was substantially less common. Consequently, comparable statistics do not exist.

Additionally, in a letter from the Governor and Attorney General of Colorado, again to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, they stated that they have enacted new laws, giving state and local law enforcement additional tools to prosecute individuals driving under the influence of marijuana, and have significantly increased the number of law enforcement officers who are trained to detect drug-impaired driving, allowing the state to identify and detain more individuals who are driving impaired than previously. More importantly, they wrote that the number of impaired drivers went down. The letter states:

In the first six months of 2017, the number of drivers the Colorado State Patrol considered impaired by marijuana dropped 21 percent compared to the first six month of 2016.

If the House wishes, I can table these two letters from Washington and Colorado for review.

It is evident that any amount of impaired driving or collisions is too high, and that is why I am pleased that the government is progressing with Bill C-46 in an effort to address and curtail impaired driving. It has also committed up to $161 million to train front-line officers in how to recognize the signs and symptoms of drug-impaired driving, to provide access to drug-screening devices, and to raise public awareness about the dangers of drug-impaired driving.

In May of this year, I had the honour of rising and speaking in favour of this legislation at second reading. Since then, the legislation has been amended by my fellow colleagues and I on the health committee. Many were technical elements to strengthen the bill, but there were several amendments of consequence as a result of our witness testimony during our intensive review.

One of the more consequential amendments made was the removal of height restrictions on cannabis plants for home cultivation so that no one who let a plant accidentally overgrow would be deemed a criminal. Additionally, the legislation was amended to ensure that it was in line with the Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act, which was introduced by my fellow health committee colleague, the member from Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, and which I was proud to second, to ensure that an individual who committed a cannabis-related offence would not be charged if he or she called the police or medical services to report an overdose.

I should add that I was disheartened when the Conservative members on the committee unanimously voted against this amendment that would save lives.

Additionally, our committee amended the legislation to ensure that edibles and concentrates would be entered under schedule 4 of the legislation as a class of cannabis that an authorized person could sell. It would be entered by either an order in council or a clause that would allow it to come into force on the first anniversary of the day on which clause 33 came into force. Essentially, this would ensure that edibles and concentrates would be legalized and properly regulated within a one-year time frame of when this legislation was enacted.

Given the transformative nature of this legislation, our committee introduced an amendment to require the minister to conduct a review of the act after three years and to table a report before Parliament. This would enable us, as parliamentarians, to determine if changes to the legislation were necessary to ensure the protection of public health and safety.

Our committee also amended clause 139 to provide the Governor in Council with the authority to make regulations that would restrict the characteristics of certain items, set limits on the amount or concentration of chemical compounds, and ensure that regulated products under the legislation would be consistent with the provisions found in Bill S-5.

The opposition has been constantly counting down to remind us how many days until legalization and have today reminded us that it is 243 days. While I am glad that my colleagues across the aisle can count backwards on a calendar, I think we should look at it in a different way.

In 243 days, we can end a system that victimizes ordinary Canadians and emboldens criminal elements in our society. In 243 days, we can end a system that ruins lives through lost opportunities and social stigma. In 243 days, we can end a system that should never have been put in place.

[Satinder Chera, President, Canadian Convenience Stores Association]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to present the convenience channel's recommendations for the upcoming budget.

Let me first start by acknowledging the measures announced this week by the government relating to small businesses, particularly around rate reduction, which we had recommended. I'm very happy with the series of announcements that have come out this week. The remarks we put out earlier this week on those measures are in your kits. I'm certainly looking forward to working with all parliamentarians, including the Minister of Finance, to provide additional feedback as we get it from our members.

I'm going to speak directly from our slide deck, which is in the kit you have before you. The first four slides really give you an overview of the convenience retail channel in Canada.

Let me start with the number of convenience stores throughout the country. I'm very proud to represent a channel that, through over 27,000 retail locations in the country, provides goods and services to Canadians in urban, rural, and remote parts of the country. I also want to take the opportunity to thank many of you who helped us and supported us on national Convenience Store Day at the end of August, when we raised over $80,000 for the Children's Wish Foundation to help children in need.

In terms of employment, we have a nearly even split between full-time and part-time employment among the 27,000 locations. Approximately 234,000 jobs are directly attributable to the retail locations across the country.

As you see on the slide on taxes collected by convenience stores, our channel collects over $22 billion in taxes for all levels of government in Canada. It's something that certainly, as one of my members said, “We don't get paid to do this”, but we do it. It's an obligation that we take very seriously.

This takes me to the first issue I wanted to raise with the committee, credit card fees. That is on slide 5.

Our members use a number of methods to collect dollars from their customers, most notably credit cards. I think I've spoken to this committee before about the fact that Canada has among the highest credit card fees in the world, ranging anywhere from 1.5% to 4% per transaction. We certainly would like to see these fees come down. We believe that if other jurisdictions such as Europe and Australia can bring them down to 0.3% or 0.5%, Canada can certainly do the same.

We support Minister Morneau's review of credit card fees. Our understanding is that his review will conclude at the end of this year, and it's certainly our hope that, in time for the next budget, there will be some good news for retailers with respect to those fees.

On slide 6, in terms of some of our regulatory concerns, there are two bills currently in Parliament that are of concern to us. One is Bill S-5, which is the vaping and plain packaging legislation. We are very worried that this legislation will make the illicit tobacco market even worse while adding additional costs to small-business retailers, and at the same time doing very little to correct the unfair advantage vape shops currently have vis-à-vis convenience stores when it comes to selling vape products.

On slide 7, I want to highlight that as the largest channel for selling age-tested products, most notably tobacco and lottery, our members take their responsibilities very seriously. We have training modules in place that our members take on an annual basis. It was our channel that abided by Health Canada's rules on e-cigarettes, preventing them from being sold in our channel.

On slide 8, you will see some of our specific concerns and the feedback we received from our members with regard to plain packaging. Most notably, at the very end security concerns have been highlighted by our members, as well as increased costs to their businesses. Again we want to impress upon the committee and the government that our channel should not be an afterthought with some of these policies, but that in fact they will have a serious impact on them.

On slide number 9 we highlight the illicit market in Canada, which is fairly big. I would note that the government's marijuana policy specifically does not recommend plain packaging and also recommends low levels of taxation, which is counter to what you find with the tobacco policies that are being advanced. Certainly we believe that action needs to be taken on the illicit market first and foremost, to bring it under control, before Bill S-5 is looked at.

Slide number 10 looks at vaping, specifically providing for a level playing field, which we don't think currently exists in the legislation.

Moving on to slide 11 and 12, with regard to Bill S-228, which is currently moving into the House of Commons, there are serious concerns around the downstream implications for our members. For example, will employees under age 17 now be prevented or prohibited from handling products such as a box of chocolates or a bag of chips? These are some of the concerns that our members have. Will they have to change the layout of their stores to abide by the rules that could be coming as a result of this legislation? Again, there are a lot of unknowns, and the feedback we're getting from our members involves questions on the government's intent on this front.

I would say that our channel is committed to working with the government and all parliamentarians to ensure that there is a wide selection of goods available in convenience stores. In certain communities, convenience stores are the only game in town.

One of the things we have recommended in the past—and we will continue to do so—is to provide targeted tax relief, including measures that can help convenience stores to carry fresh fruits and vegetables.

On my final slide, committee members, you will see our list of recommendations. The issues I've just spoken to are provided in more detail on the left-hand side of your kits.

I would be more than happy to take any questions you might have. Thank you very much.

[Eric Gagnon, Head, Corporate and Regulatory Affairs, Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited]

Thank you Mr. Chair.

Good morning everyone.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to make a presentation before the committee.

My name is Eric Gagnon, and I am the head of corporate and regulatory affairs for Imperial Tobacco Canada, the largest legal tobacco manufacturer in Canada. I stress the word “legal” because there is a thriving illegal market in Canada today.

I will start by saying that there are important health risks associated with smoking. You may agree or disagree with tobacco consumption. However, cigarettes are still legal in Canada, and I think we can all agree that, if adult consumers choose to smoke, we are all better off if they buy their products legally.

Unfortunately, over the last half of this year, industry data suggests that there has been a major spike in illegal tobacco activity in Canada and in Ontario in particular. That should concern this committee because illegal tobacco is already costing governments $2 billion in lost tax revenue annually.

Let me remind you of some of the basics of the size and the scope of illegal tobacco in Canada. According to the RCMP, there are over 50 illegal cigarette manufacturers in Canada and more than 300 smoke shacks manufacturing and selling tobacco outside existing legal, regulatory, and tax frameworks. There are over 175 organized crime groups that are dealing contraband tobacco across the country. Illegal tobacco rates are in the 15% to 20% range in Atlantic Canada, in the 30% to 40% range in Ontario, and in the 12% to 15% range in the west. To put things in perspective, if Ontario were a country, it would have the third-largest illegal tobacco market in the world.

You should be very concerned about policy decisions in Ontario that are making this situation much worse, including a reckless move earlier this year to increase tobacco taxes by $10 per carton over the next three years. As the biggest market in the country, when illegal tobacco rates rise in Ontario, it means even more lost tax revenue for the federal government. The only province making significant inroads in this is Quebec, where aggressive enforcement actions have reduced the illegal tobacco rate from 40% to less than 15%.

With that in mind, we offer three recommendations to fight illegal tobacco. In so doing, I will draw parallels for each of the government's approaches to marijuana legalization.

First, Canada needs a predictable framework for tobacco taxation. International experience shows that a moderate, annual increase that's tied to a variable like inflation is the best approach, like the model that was put in place last year for alcohol.

There is also a need for federal-provincial coordination on tobacco taxation like the finance minister has proposed for marijuana. While the tax framework proposed for marijuana is designed to match the black market price and kill the illegal market, with tobacco it seems to be the exact opposite, with repeated tax increases pushing legal prices to well over $100 per carton in most provinces compared to as little as $15 for the illegal equivalent.

Second, a whole-of-government approach is needed for tobacco in which taxation, regulation, and enforcement are considered in the context of a thriving illegal trade. The government is designing a marijuana framework to drive organized crime out of that business, but it is ignoring the illegal tobacco trade. However, the same organized crime groups are behind illegal tobacco and marijuana, so you really need to ask whether Canada is better off if you drive organized crime out of marijuana but then they gain an even stronger footing in tobacco.

Third, the government needs to reconsider its plan for plain and standardized packaging of tobacco and the standardization of cigarettes themselves. In Bill S-5, which is before the House, Health Canada has given itself the regulatory authority to mandate that every tobacco package and every single cigarette must look exactly the same. If that happens, it will be impossible for consumers, retailers, and law enforcement to tell a legal product from an illegal product, and the contraband problem you have now will be exacerbated by a flood of counterfeits.

Health Canada claims that excise stamps and health warnings will distinguish legal products from illegal products; however, those are already appearing on clear, illegal products, including baggies of cigarettes. The stamping system is something this committee needs to look at. It is completely broken. There are products being produced by unlicensed manufacturers that are sold with a federal excise stamp. Since no one will explain to us how this is happening, perhaps you can ask for answers, because it undermines the integrity of the whole tax and regulatory regime for tobacco in Canada. In the meantime, it is reckless to continue down the path of plain and standardized packaging when there are already no controls over the means to differentiate the existing products.

The government seems to recognize the risk of plain packaging. The parliamentary secretary to the ministers of health and justice, Bill Blair, said in August that some level of branding will be allowed on marijuana to help fight the illegal market, yet when we made the same argument for tobacco, we were ignored. There is a need for consistency between marijuana and tobacco on taxation, packaging, and the focus on getting organized crime out of the business.

If you are willing to invest in fighting illegal tobacco, as Quebec has done, there is billions in lost revenue that can be recouped.

Thank you for your time. I look forward to your questions.

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Through this amendment, we want to allow the government to monitor and regulate all aspects of chemical substances, whether we are talking about burning or vaporizing cannabis, and all of the accessories used in connection with cannabis. This amendment would give the government the authority to regulate the emissions produced by these products and accessories, such as, for instance, through the imposition of limits on chemical concentration.

This is also related to Bill S-5, which intends to allow the governor in council to regulate vaping product characteristics and emissions.

For all of these good reasons, we are moving the amendment which is before you. I will not read it because it is very technical. It concerns clause 139, lines 25 to 27 on page 81 of the English version.

I am at your disposal to answer questions.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Thanks. I'd like to say a few things for the record.

Mr. Van Kesteren, I have talked, as you say, to soccer moms. I've talked to school principals and teachers who were, in fact, very much in favour of this. As for town halls, many MPs, including some Conservative MPs, had town halls on this. I can tell you that at the town hall in my riding, which has actually traditionally been a Conservative riding, the support was overwhelmingly in favour of this legislation.

In regard to Mr. Davies' comment about whether or not we're taking on big tobacco, we are tabling Bill S-5, which is on plain packaging of tobacco. We are taking on big tobacco.

[Lynne Hudson, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Cancer Society]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is my privilege to be here today on behalf of the Canadian Cancer Society, the country's largest health charity and the only charity that supports people with all types of cancer.

My remarks today focus on recommendations numbers one and two in our pre-budget submission: a $10 million partnership with the government of Canada to improve the continuum of care, and the strengthening of the federal tobacco control strategy.

Every single hour, 24 Canadians will hear the words "you have cancer” and join the more than 810,000 Canadians already living with this disease. One in two Canadians is expected to be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime, and by 2035 we expect there to be 35% more new cancer cases than there are this year. We continue to make progress in having more Canadians survive cancer, but as many studies show, including the work from the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, cancer patients, survivors, and families still face challenges in getting the health information and practical and emotional support they need. Patients who are well informed are more likely to feel empowered and comply with treatment, improving outcomes and saving health care dollars. This emotional support improves not only mental well-being but also individual productivity.

The Canadian Cancer Society is in a strong position to connect more patients and families with the support and services they need when and where they need them. We are Canada's trusted source for cancer information, and every year our services help millions of people access treatment, care, and support, often while they continue to live at home or in a community setting. Our 80-plus community offices across Canada and 100,000 volunteers give us a powerful local presence, and our connection to cancer treatment and research centres from coast to coast provides a vast network for engaging and informing patients, health professionals, and the public.

CCS can help transform cancer care in Canada by complementing the health care system and improving the transition to community care. We propose a $10-million partnership with the federal government to help us empower Canadians so they can better meet their health care needs. With government support to expand our reach and increase our capacity, we will help Canadians learn more about their diagnoses, locate home and palliative care services, connect with peer-support programs, and navigate the health, social, and financial services available to them. By doing so, we will improve quality of life, reduce emotional stress, and help Canadians be more productive in their lives as they remain engaged with their communities and workplaces. In addition, this will drive efficiency within the health care system.

This partnership will achieve four important goals to meet the needs of cancer patients and caregivers: first, increase reach and accessibility of programs and services; second, offer patient-centred, integrated, and seamless access to a suite of services; third, improve engagement with patients and families throughout the continuum of the cancer journey; and fourth, use strategic partnerships with like-minded organizations to enhance services through innovative collaboration.

Our second recommendation is to strengthen the federal tobacco control strategy, scheduled to expire in March 2018. Tobacco is the leading preventable cause of disease and death in Canada, causing 37,000 deaths annually including 30% of all cancer cases.

In terms of lost productivity, the Conference Board reports that, on average, each smoker costs an employer $3,842 annually. To reach the objective of under 5% tobacco use by 2035, Canada needs a high-impact strategy. Previous budget cuts have undermined impact, with Health Canada's current annual tobacco control budget of $38 million annually representing only 1.2% of the $3.2 billion in annual federal tobacco tax revenue and representing just $1.04 per capita compared with $3.39 in the U.S.

Increased Health Canada investments should at least match the U.S. per capita amount. This amount would allow for enriched incentives for cessation, youth prevention, mass media, indigenous populations, and it would complement pending plain packaging requirements through Bill S-5. The bottom line is that a strengthened tobacco strategy would have a dramatic impact on preventing cancer and saving lives. These two recommendations are practical and affordable steps we can take together. The Canadian Cancer Society is asking for your help and is eager to work with you to achieve these goals.

On behalf of the one in two Canadians who expect a cancer diagnosis and their families and loved ones, we thank you for your time today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

We're bringing meeting number 68 of the Standing Committee on Health to order. We're studying Bill C-45, and our panel this morning will focus on edible products.

While I have a minute, I want to tell the committee—and I've been on a lot of committees—and yesterday was 12 hours straight. Nobody lost their focus, nobody lost their interest, everybody was paying attention, and I thought through this week that all members of the committee have done a really good job of asking the right questions and bringing the right issues up. I'm really pleased and proud to be part of this committee. I just wanted to say that this morning. I was thinking about it last night. In an awful lot of committees, people are not focused, and they lose interest at some point, but nobody has lost interest at all through this whole session, and it's been quite a marathon. I thank you all for doing that. It's been quite a week, and we're not done yet. We have edibles this morning.

To start our panel on edible products, we have three witnesses this morning. Dr. Ryan Vandrey by video conference from Maryland. He's an associate professor at Johns Hopkins University. From the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, we have Dr. Daniel Vigil, manager of marijuana health monitoring and research. From Sensible BC, we have Mr. Dana Larsen, director.

We're going to ask each one of you to make a statement that's a maximum of 10 minutes long. Then when we're done the three opening statements, we'll ask questions for the next little while. We'll start with Dr. Vandrey to make a 10 minute introduction.

[Mike Hammoud]

And they're selling it illegally. You don't think for a moment that, as soon as you come up with a standardized pack.... Think about that for a moment. You're going to come up with a standardized pack that could be made very easily by anyone. What would stop them from duplicating that product? And, if you follow the same route of what you're following on Bill S-5, you're saying that everything inside the pack isn't going to have any labelling either.

So how do you distinguish between, inside the pack, what's legal and what's illegal if the package is plain? It doesn't make any sense.

[Melodie Tilson]

It goes far beyond colour. We're talking about fancy fonts. We're talking about package shape and size, opening style; all of these attributes that convey brand images. It's not only about colour. There's a very comprehensive list of restrictions in the government's consultation document on plain packaging, and I refer you to that.

Bill S-5 does not have detailed language in it. That will come in the regulations.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Okay. Bill S-5, then, which is dealing I think with tobacco products and plain packaging, would prohibit use of colouring agents to design a trademark on tobacco products—to display a mark—so you'd be looking more for that kind of taking the colour out and taking the branding out.... That would be what you'd like to see added to what's already here. Is that fair?

[Mike Hammoud, President, Atlantic Convenience Stores Association]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, everyone. I'm Mike Hammoud, president of the Atlantic Convenience Stores Association, ACSA. On behalf of the ACSA, I'd like to thank the Standing Committee on Health for inviting us here today to speak on the labelling and packaging of retail cannabis as it pertains to Bill C-45.

Within the context of my presentation today, it is our understanding that the objectives of the act are to prevent minors from accessing cannabis, to protect public health and public safety by establishing strict product safety and product quality requirements, and to deter criminal activity by imposing serious criminal penalties for those operating outside the legal framework. It is also our understanding that the act is intended to reduce the burden on the criminal justice system in relation to cannabis.

More specifically, the focus today is on the labelling and packaging of regulated cannabis products at retail. To that end, I believe our experience with tobacco retailing has significant relevance to the issues you are dealing with.

First, I will begin with some information about the ACSA, our members and our collaborators. Secondly, I would like to delve into the specific issues of the labelling and packaging of regulated cannabis sales, and our experiences with tobacco packaging and labelling.

The ACSA was established in 2009 as a not-for-profit trade organization to promote responsible convenience retailing and to represent the economic interests of our convenience store members. Today, our membership includes more than two-thirds of the convenience store locations operating in Atlantic Canada.

In collaboration with the Canadian Convenience Stores Association, the Western Convenience Store Association, the Ontario Convenience Stores Association, the Quebec Convenient Stores Association, and the National Convenience Stores Distributors Association, we have considerable experience with and insight into convenience retailing.

Convenience retailers are heavily regulated, be it lottery, food services, beverages, alcohol where available, and in particular tobacco. In tobacco retailing, we have experienced monumental change over the years and we have worked with regulators in our industry to achieve what we believe to be two primary goals. The first is to minimize tobacco consumption among minors; the second is to minimize the rampant distribution of illegal tobacco.

Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, I am of the firm belief that we can bring relative and pertinent insights to your deliberations, so let's move on to the labelling and packaging of federally or provincially regulated cannabis at retail.

At present, legislation—Bill S-5—has been put forward that would introduce plain packaging for tobacco products in Canada. As mentioned earlier, this legislation would eliminate the branding of products. By this we mean the trademarks, individual logos, graphics and colours that differentiate one product from another. With a standardized generic package, the only brand identification would be the product name in a small and simple standardized font. Everything inside would look the same.

The catalyst for this is Australian plain-packaging legislation that came into effect in late 2012. However, that example and others demonstrates that plain packaging doesn't work. In the case of Australia, the reality is that an examination of all publicly available, relevant and reliable data, after five years points to the same conclusion, that there's been no statistically significant decline in Australian smoking prevalence. In the Australian plain-packaging environment, there has also been a dynamic shift in market share between legal and illegal tobacco products, with consumption of illegal products increasing.

Is there a correlation between plain packaging and illegal consumption? Our Australian colleagues are of the opinion, and we concur, that plain packaging is the catalyst for a race to the bottom in terms of the lowest price point being the primary purchase motivator. When the price becomes the primary purchase motivator, that opens the door to illegal purchases that can be made at a fraction of the price of legally sold product.

In Canada, we estimate that illegal products account for some 20% of the overall consumption of cigarettes, with the illegal market share being upwards of 33%, and higher in Ontario. In the end, labelling and packaging are immaterial to many tobacco purchases relative to access to cheap smokes. How would this be any different for retail sales of cannabis?

We know that many illegal cigarettes are sold unbranded and loose in poly bags, also known as baggies, but it should be noted that plain packaging opens the door to increased distribution and sales of counterfeit or look-alike packaged cigarettes, simply because it is so much easier for illegal producers to replicate the packaging. Will your average smoker know the difference? It's unlikely.

More recently, plain tobacco packaging became mandatory in France as of January 1 this year, in what was described by proponents as a decisive weapon against smoking. To the surprise and shock of many, first-quarter sales of cigarettes in France increased 7% compared with the same period in 2016. The French health ministry dismissed the sales increase, saying that plain packaging would not influence current smokers, that plain packaging was principally targeting younger people, and that the impact would only become apparent in the medium- to long-term future. What we have, then, is a plain-packaging advocate saying that plain packaging will have no impact on established smokers, and that the target population for plain packaging is youth.

Well, look at the situation in the Canadian context. As far back as 2003, there have been strict rules in place in Canada related to tobacco marketing that prevent the advertising or promotion of tobacco, testimonials, accessories, and anything else tobacco-related that could be appealing to young people. Today there is also mandatory use of locked cabinets or screens at point of sale to hide tobacco products from display.

At the same time, a large majority of retailers are vigilant in screening out underage buyers through the widespread practice of asking for proof of age identification. Our industry takes great pride in its ability to be a responsible and diligent partner to government in the controlled sale of age-restricted products like tobacco. Such training programs as “We Expect ID” are a commitment to assist retailers and their staff in upholding the highest standards of professionalism and ethical conduct and to support public health and safety. Underage youth in Canada today have negligible exposure to cigarette packaging and labelling. In our opinion, the unintended impacts of plain packaging, such as the lowest-price mentality among consumers or the risk of increased contraband sales, far outweigh any perceived benefits.

It is notable that youth cannabis smoking rates in Canada are twice as high as youth smoking rates. According to Health Canada, the national youth tobacco smoking rate in 2015 was 10%, while the national youth cannabis smoking rate was 21%. Generic packaging would not be an effective tool in achieving what is a common goal for all of us, which is negligible rates of both tobacco and cannabis consumption among youth. We believe that if governments are serious about reducing smoking, be it tobacco or cannabis, then there is much more work that can be done in the areas of education and smoking cessation.

Convenience retailers believe that the types of initiatives in place for tobacco retail sales in Canada can be replicated effectively for the retail sale of cannabis without resorting to the questionable value and impact of plain labelling and packaging. As is the case with tobacco, industry, anti-cannabis groups, health care organizations, and governments should work together to minimize the number of youth and adults consuming cannabis.

In conclusion, we recommend to the committee that branding on cannabis retail packaging be allowed for two important reasons: one, to reduce the ability of criminals to produce and distribute contraband product; and two, to minimize the impact of lowest price point by educating and allowing legal consumers to make informed decisions on their product choices.

Thank you.

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

My question now is for Ms. Baxter, and it has to do with Bill S-5. As we look at Bill S-5 and the vaping, and we start thinking about what we should put in as language around cannabis, are there any concerns about potency guidelines or anything like that you think we should be including?

[Brenda Baxter, Director General, Workplace Directorate, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development]

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, I am very pleased to appear before you to discuss workplace safety.

I am accompanied by my colleague Eric Advokaat, senior director of Occupational Health and Safety.

Responsibility for labour matters in Canada, including workplace safety, is shared between the federal, provincial, and territorial governments. For more than 100 years now, the labour program has been protecting the rights and well-being of both workers and employers in federally regulated sectors, which represent approximately 8% of Canadian workers. This includes creating and maintaining safe and healthy workplaces.

As part of its mandate, the labour program is equally responsible for the administration and enforcement of the Non-smokers' Health Act.

Enacted in 1989, the purpose of the Non-smokers’ Health Act and the non-smokers' health regulations is to protect non-smokers from second-hand smoke in federally regulated workplaces, including in the federal private sector, federal crown corporations, designated federal agencies, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the federal public service, and Parliament, as well as on certain modes of transportation, such as ships, trains, and aircraft.

The administration of the Non-smokers’ Health Act is the joint responsibility of the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour and the Minister of Transport. The former is responsible for the act's application to federally regulated workplaces, and the latter for its application to common federally regulated transportation carriers.

The Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour is solely responsible for designating inspectors to ensure compliance with the act. Fines for offences under the Non-smokers’ Health Act range from $1,000 to $10,000 for employers, and $50 to $1,000 for individuals.

Since 2007, over the past 10 years, there have been a total of 39 complaints under the Non-smokers’ Health Act, with an average of less than two per year in the past five years. This represents 1% of all of the health and safety complaints under just one part of the Canada Labour Code. There are very few complaints under this act.

To date, no prosecution has been filed under the Non-smokers' Health Act.

Since the Non-smokers' Health Act and the non-smokers' health regulations were introduced in 1989, public views with regard to smoking and second-hand smoke have greatly evolved.

In 2007, in light of scientific evidence on the danger of second-hand smoke, the non-smokers' health regulations were amended to eliminate provisions allowing for the designation of smoking rooms and areas in federally regulated workplaces. Since then, all persons, including employees and members of the public, have been prohibited from smoking in any federally regulated workplace and on certain modes of transportation, except in highly restricted smoking areas such as living accommodations or motor vehicles to which only one person has access during a shift.

More recently, new amendments to the Non-smokers' Health Act were proposed under Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Tobacco Act and the Non-smokers’ Health Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

The proposed tobacco and vaping products act, Bill S-5, would amend the Non-smokers' Health Act to add a prohibition against the vaping of tobacco in federally regulated workplaces and on certain modes of transportation. In addition, the task force on cannabis legalization and regulation recommended that federal, provincial, and territorial jurisdictions extend the current restrictions in place for smoking tobacco to the smoking of cannabis. As a result, amendments to the Non-smokers' Health Act are correspondingly being proposed through Bill C-45.

Bill C-45 proposes to amend the definition of smoke under the Non-smokers' Health Act to include cannabis. Provincial and territorial governments would be responsible for deciding whether to restrict the smoking and vaping of tobacco and cannabis to other public spaces. Should both these bills be approved by Parliament, the smoking and vaping of tobacco or cannabis would be regulated under the Non-smokers' Health Act in all federally regulated workplaces and on certain modes of transportation such as trains, planes, and boats where they cross provincial or international boundaries.

The changes we are proposing would assist in the protection of employees' health and safety at work under federal jurisdiction purview.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Dr. Eileen de Villa]

That's okay. I'm fairly flexible with the title, although I did work hard to get it.

Good afternoon, and thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for the opportunity to speak with you today.

As you heard, I am Dr. Eileen de Villa, and I am the medical officer of health for the City of Toronto, where I serve the 2.8 million residents of our very fine city.

I should point out that my comments here today represent not just my views, but also the views of Toronto Public Health and the Toronto Board of Health and are restricted to the proposed legislation for non-medical cannabis.

Just to kick off, I'd like to say that we do support the goal of Bill C-45 to provide Canadians with legal access to cannabis and, in doing so, ending the practice of criminalizing people who consume cannabis for non-medical purposes.

As you've heard from presenters thus far, the science on cannabis is indeed still emerging. We do know that it's not a benign substance. We know that it's a psychoactive substance with known harms of use. It's therefore imperative, in my opinion and in that of my organization, that the development of a regulatory framework be guided by public health principles to balance legal access to cannabis with reducing harms of use.

As you've heard already from some of the other witnesses before you today, there is health evidence that shows that smoking cannabis is linked to a number of health conditions, respiratory disorders, including bronchitis and cancer. It's also known to impair memory, attention span, and other cognitive functioning. It impairs psychomotor abilities, including motor coordination and divided attention. These are relevant public health concerns because of their connection to impaired driving in particular.

You've also heard that heavy cannabis use during adolescence has been linked to more serious and long-lasting outcomes such as greater likelihood of developing dependence and impairments in memory and verbal learning. In addition, the risk of dependence increases when use is initiated in adolescence, as rightfully pointed out by Dr. Maté.

As you may know, motor vehicle accidents are the main contributor to Canada's burden of disease and injury when it comes to cannabis. A recent study revealed that many Canadian youth consider cannabis to be less impairing than alcohol; however, as mentioned earlier, the psychoactive effects of cannabis can negatively affect the cognitive and psychomotor skills needed for driving.

In addition to strengthening penalties for impaired driving by amending the Criminal Code as put forward in Bill C-45, preventing canabis-impaired driving will require targeted public education. It's my understanding that the Government of Canada is preparing a public campaign to raise awareness about drug-impaired driving. Toronto Public Health would recommend that the government use evidence-informed messaging targeting youth and young adults in particular and launch this campaign without delay.

Further, I would recommend that the government support municipalities, provinces, and territories with local initiatives to discourage people from driving after consuming cannabis.

In its final recommendations to the government, the task force on cannabis legalization and regulation expressed concerns about the reliability of predicting impairment based on levels of THC, the main psychoactive compound in cannabis detected in samples of bodily fluids. These concerns have also been raised by other organizations, including those in the United States. I would recommend that the government make further investments in research and refinements to technology to better link THC levels with impairment and crash risk for developing evidence-informed standards.

The stated key objective of Bill C-45 to prevent young people from accessing cannabis is central to adopting a public health approach to the legalization of cannabis. We must apply lessons learned from tobacco and alcohol in developing the appropriate policy framework at all orders of government to prevent young people from using cannabis.

As mentioned by my colleague, evidence about tobacco advertising shows that it has an impact on youth smoking and that comprehensive advertising bans are most effective in reducing tobacco use and initiation. Personally, I welcome the requirements in Bill C-45 that maintain existing promotion and marketing rules in place for tobacco, including restrictions on point of sale promotion. We would also like to see these restrictions strengthened to include advertising in such venues as movies, video games, and other media, including online marketing and advertising, which are accessible to youth. Further, additional research on the impact of marketing and promotion is essential for making evidence-informed amendments to regulations and to develop prevention strategies. Federal funding should be targeted to this area.

Furthermore, we know that labelling and packaging are being used for promoting tobacco and tobacco brands. While I appreciate that Bill C-45 prohibits packaging and labelling of cannabis in a way that could be appealing to young people, a key omission in the act is a requirement for the plain packaging of retail cannabis products.

In a recent report, the Smoke-Free Ontario Scientific Advisory Committee identified plain packaging as a highly impactful tool for reducing tobacco use. The requirement for plain and standardized packaging for tobacco is currently being proposed in federal Bill S-5, and we recommend you do likewise for cannabis.

Fundamental to a public health approach for legalizing access to cannabis is regulating retail access. I am pleased with the Province of Ontario's recently announced intent to establish a provincially controlled agency for the retail sale and distribution of non-medical cannabis, separate from that for alcohol. A government-controlled retail and distribution system that is guided by public health objectives and social responsibility will ensure better control of health protective measures for cannabis use. I also urge your government to direct other provinces and territories to establish a retail and distribution system that is guided by public health principles and social responsibility.

I commend the government for not legalizing access to cannabis-based edible products until comprehensive regulations for its production, distribution, and sale have been developed. The experience in the United States cautions us of the challenges posed by edible cannabis products, including accidental consumption by children, overconsumption due to the delay in feeling the psychoactive effects, and in ensuring standardization of the potency of cannabis in edible products.

I would now like to draw your attention to some of the limitations of the existing cannabis research. While there is growing evidence about the health impacts of cannabis, some of the research findings are inconsistent or even contradictory, and causal relationships have not always been established. There is still much that we don't know. Most of the research to date has focused on frequent, chronic use, and the results must be interpreted in that context. More evidence is needed about occasional and moderate use, as this comprises the majority of cannabis use. I therefore urge you to earmark funding for research related to the full range of health impacts of cannabis use, in particular for occasional and moderate consumption.

Evidence-informed public education will be imperative for implementing an effective health-promoting regulatory framework for cannabis. There is an opportunity to promote a culture of moderation and harm reduction for cannabis that may extend to other substance use, especially among young people. The Government of Canada has stated its plan to pass Bill C-45 by July 1, 2018. However, in the meantime, Canadians continue to be arrested for possession of cannabis. Criminalization of cannabis use and possession impacts social determinants of health such as access to employment and housing. Given that cannabis possession will soon be made lawful in Canada, I urge you to immediately decriminalize the possession of non-medical cannabis for personal use.

In closing, I would like to reaffirm that Toronto Public Health supports the stated intent of Bill C-45 and recommends strengthening the health promoting requirements in the bill. I appreciate the complexity of building a regulatory framework for non-medical cannabis. Given that we're still learning about the impacts of cannabis use, the legal framework for cannabis must allow for strengthening health promoting policies while curtailing the influence of profit-driven policies. I look forward to ongoing consultations with the Government of Canada on the evolving policy landscape for this important public health issue.

Thank you for your attention.

Tobacco and Vaping Products Act

[Jane Philpott, Liberal, Minister of Health]

moved for leave to introduce Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Tobacco Act and the Non-smokers’ Health Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Message from the Senate

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I have the honour to inform the House that messages have been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bills, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Indian Act (elimination of sex-based inequities in registration); and Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Tobacco Act and the Non-smokers’ Health Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

[Simon Kennedy]

Just by looking at my latest notes on this, I believe our plan is to move ahead on plain packaging relatively expeditiously. We have legislation before the House now, in BillS-5, that will give us some additional authorities needed to take action on plain packaging. We would be doing this largely through regulation, so I don't think you're going to be seeing a plain packaging bill as a stand-alone. The legislation we've already brought into the House will give us some extra oomph that will be needed, but we would be looking at probably, largely, regulatory measures to move ahead.

I just want to underline that we are entirely dedicated to getting this done and getting it done as quickly as possible, but we would not envisage another bill that would need to be brought forward for that.