Can I use my colleague's time?
Evidence of meeting #26 for Health in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was product.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #26 for Health in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was product.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4 p.m.
Vice-President, Distribution GVA Inc.
Oh. I appreciate your patience.
Let me wind up very quickly with my recommendation, but just before that, I think there's a very important point. Distribution GVA is the largest cigar distributor in the province of Quebec. Following the adoption of Bill 112 last year, which set a minimum purchase price for all cigar transactions, we lost all of our single-unit sales by adopting the minimum transaction cost. Our single-unit sales are just gone.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Mr. Dumulong, you will have a chance to embellish some of the points you want to make during the question period.
4 p.m.
Conservative
4 p.m.
Vice-President, Distribution GVA Inc.
There was so little time to prepare, Madam Chair--
4 p.m.
Conservative
June 11th, 2009 / 4 p.m.
Tamara Gitto Associate General Counsel, Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Before I begin, I would just like to ensure that our submission has been received by the committee, both French and English versions. Thank you.
My name is Tamara Gitto. I'm associate general counsel at Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited. I am accompanied by my colleague, Mr. Gaëtan Duplessis, who is division head of research and development at Imperial.
We appreciate this opportunity to speak to Bill C-32. We've prepared a formal submission, and I hope you'll take the time to review it if you've not had the chance to do so already.
I think it's important to begin by clarifying the scope of our business. You've heard a lot about the tobacco industry and the tobacco business in the last few minutes. We do not manufacture or sell little cigars. We do not manufacture or sell flavoured cigarettes, except for menthol. We do not manufacture chewing tobacco.
Ordinarily, I would go on to tell you that Imperial is Canada's leading tobacco company. But I can't make that claim anymore. The manufacturers in Ontario and Quebec, the leading manufacturers in those provinces, are illegal manufacturers. Almost 50% of all tobacco purchased in Ontario is illicit, and this number reaches 40% in Quebec. Certain members have raised this issue in the debates on this bill, and rightly so.
Imperial Tobacco is here today to state its support for the original intent of this bill. We support the regulation of little cigars and we believe they should be regulated in the same manner as cigarettes. We also support reasonable regulation of overtly flavoured tobacco products.
We do have some reservations about the drafting of the bill, which has led to many unintended consequences, and these issues will be detailed by my colleague.
We also believe that the listed additives should be permitted in research and development, especially in the area of harm reduction. We believe that the development and commercialization of potentially risk-reduced products containing these additives should be allowed under appropriate government supervision.
We must unfortunately voice our disagreement with the proposal to ban print advertising, as it's currently outlined in the bill, in publications with at least 85% adult readership. The current legislation is sufficient and needs only to be enforced if Health Canada believes that an ad or any ad placement is inappropriate. Further legislation is unnecessary.
On top of that, illegal tobacco is openly advertised and available at pocket-change prices to whoever chooses to buy it. Banning print ads with severely restricted content in adult publications is not the true problem here, which leads me to my last point.
We are concerned about uniform enforcement of this bill and of all tobacco control measures. If the government enforcement policy does not change, flavoured products will simply appear on the black market and will defeat the objective of this bill.
These concerns have been detailed in
our submission at considerable length.
I would invite you to read it.
My colleague, Mr. Duplessis, will now address the technical issues that arise due to the unintended drafting issues in the bill.
4:05 p.m.
Gaëtan Duplessis Director, Research and Development, Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited
Thank you, Madam Chair, for this opportunity.
As mentioned already, we support the broad objective of elimination of overtly fruity or confectionery style of flavours in all tobacco products. So in that sense we don't have any complaint about the concept of coming up with a list of prohibited additives in relation to tobacco products.
We do have some difficulties, however. We believe these are unintended impacts of the wording used in the legislation. And all of this, of course, is related to technical interpretation of the language in the bill and more specifically in schedule 1.
Because of the way it's drafted, it de facto prevents us from using a large number of ingredients that truly have nothing to do with flavouring. So far, we have identified more than 20 ingredients that are used by our suppliers and are required in the making of our products. If the bill were to be adopted as it is currently written, in fact it would prevent us from continuing to manufacture cigarettes.
I'll give you a few examples. In relation to item 1 of the schedule, the FEMA list covers not only flavourants but all types of ingredients without flavour that are used by flavour manufacturers in making up their formulations.
Item 1 in the schedule does provide for some exemptions, but it doesn't capture everything. One example of that is a very simple one; it's a product called potassium sorbate. Potassium sorbate is a very well-known preservative used very widely in the food industry. It's used within the cigarette industry as an additive to adhesives, or glues if you prefer, just to keep mould from growing on the adhesive when it's stored in tanks.
Elsewhere in the schedule we see words like “sugars” being used. Well, sugars are not just sweetening agents. In technical parlance, “sugars” often refers to complex sugars. One of the most common complex sugars is starch, and as we well know, starch is not a sweet substance; it's also extracted from vegetables and fruits, of course the most common form of starch being cornstarch. This is again not exactly a problem from a flavouring standpoint. Starch, I should point out, is also used as one of the principal ingredients by several manufacturers of cigarette papers to create what we refer to as the “speed bumps” on the cigarette papers that are used to meet the low ignition propensity regulations in Canada.
Yet another example is the expression “vitamins and minerals”. We understand that was meant to refer to vitamins and minerals from the standpoint of nutrition. However, unfortunately—and we have to interpret this from a technical, scientific standpoint—the word “mineral” also encompasses calcium carbonate, or, if you prefer, chalk. Chalk, again, has nothing to do with nutrition, but chalk is used in cigarette papers to control the flow of air through the paper, and it plays a really important role, again, in our ability to meet the low ignition propensity regulations.
Furthermore, linseed oil and soybean oil are used in ink formulations as diluents in the ink, much in the same way as these products are used in inks and in the paint industry. But linseed oil and soybean oil are not there for any nutritional value. In fact, it would be ludicrous to make such a claim. They're simply there as a diluent, but they do contain essential fatty acids.
I don't believe it was the intent of the legislation, but the fact remains that this is the wording that is used currently, and we feel it certainly needs to be corrected. I won't go any further with examples. There are many more.
Our suggestion would be to create a list of additives that impart these fruity confectionery flavours, and let's have a ban on those additives. Alternatively, let's come up with a list of products that are permitted on the basis of functionality, provided these do not provide these overt flavours.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
I'm sorry, sir. I've given everybody a chance to go over time today, because we didn't have a whole lot of witnesses. I know a lot of questions are waiting. I've been equal on the “over time” with everybody, let's put it that way.
Could you just quickly sum up, sir, please?
4:10 p.m.
Director, Research and Development, Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited
Generally speaking, ITCAN endorses the regulating of fruit and confectionery-flavoured little cigars. We are open to working with Health Canada officials on an ongoing basis to find a solution that will achieve the objectives sought and avoid the problems arising from the inadequate wording of the regulations.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Thank you. We'll now go into our questions and answers. We'll start with round one. The first round is seven minutes for the question as well as the answer.
We'll begin with Dr. Duncan.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the witnesses.
Mr. Hagen, why was menthol originally used in cigarettes?
4:10 p.m.
Executive Director, Action on Smoking and Health
As I understand it, it was to help soothe the harsh taste of tobacco smoke and to make it easier to ingest that smoke, especially for new smokers.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Thank you. You were very clear that menthol should be included in the ban.
4:10 p.m.
Executive Director, Action on Smoking and Health
We believe to be consistent it should be there. I understand there may not be as much evidence on the youth use of that product in Canada as there is in some other products. I would certainly like to see it removed.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
If flavoured products are banned, what impact will there be on youth on the use of menthol cigarettes, do you think?
4:10 p.m.
Executive Director, Action on Smoking and Health
The same impact it would have on flavoured cigarillos. I would expect to see a remarkable decline in the use of that product by young people and by adults if that product is no longer available.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
If there is a ban on flavoured products, will youth increase their use of menthol products?
4:10 p.m.
Executive Director, Action on Smoking and Health
It's possible. That's why I would hope if there is a schedule, it's going to be a fluid schedule. If we see an increased use of menthol or anything else, the government can step in right away and do something about it.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Has there been any research to look at what happens to the consumption of menthol when flavoured products are banned?
4:10 p.m.
Executive Director, Action on Smoking and Health
A few jurisdictions have started to ban flavourings, including menthol, but I would have to defer to Health Canada on that. We have certainly seen it work the other way: you introduce new flavourings and youth consumption goes up, so it stands to reason it would work in the opposite direction.