Health Committee on Feb. 12th, 2018

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

Doctor, do you have any studies demonstrating the price elasticity of cigarette sales?

[Prof. Sinclair Davidson]

I haven't done those studies myself, no.

What has happened in Australia is that the market share of cheap cigarettes—what we call “cheapies”—has quite dramatically surged. The data that I have shows that the share of the market for cheapies increased 135%. Smokers are now going into a store and saying, “Give me your cheapest cigarette”. That's what they're buying.

The medical evidence shows that smokers can't really tell the difference between one brand of cigarettes and another brand. When I tell that to smokers, they deny it vehemently. They say they can, but it seems there's no real evidence for that.

People are substituting legal cigarettes for illegal cigarettes and expensive cigarettes for cheaper cigarettes. That's probably a combination of the removal of branding and, of course, the increase in the size of the illegal market.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Thanks very much.

Now we go to Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

First of all, I want to thank all of the witnesses. I know that, for the tobacco industry and its allies, the health committee is not the easiest place to testify. I want to thank you for being here.

I find myself wondering if we're dancing around trying to prove that water is wet. I'm sitting here holding up a small package with a thin, little cigarette that has a little purple dot on it, and I'm listening to people tell me that they don't think that marketing or how a product looks makes it more attractive to a consumer. I think that's ludicrous. There's not a single Canadian who would believe that. Millions, maybe billions of dollars, is spent every year on sophisticated marketing to make a product more attractive to a person. What this legislation is really about is taking that away from a product that is an addictive carcinogen.

I don't think I need any studies to know that, if we made these cigarette packages less attractive, if we make the health warnings more prominent, if we remove lifestyle advertising that suggests to any user that smoking cigarettes is sophisticated and cool, that it will help with weight loss or make you in any way attractive, it will have a dampening effect on tobacco use over the long-term.

Does anybody here disagree with what I just said?

[Prof. Sinclair Davidson]

If I could add to that, though, there was a very unfortunate by-product of some of the graphic health warnings here in Australia. Some of the warnings were along the lines of “Smoking makes your baby smaller”. There was a sociologist at the Australian National University who discovered that a lot of young pregnant women started smoking for the sole purpose of actually having a smaller baby in order to avoid pain in childbirth.

We also need to think carefully about the unintended consequences of what seems on paper to be a good idea.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Yes.

By the way, Dr. Davidson, I'm sorry but I do have to ask this, because you're a professor: have you ever received any funding from the tobacco industry or any related tobacco affiliate for any of your research at any time?

[Prof. Sinclair Davidson]

No, I have not.

My university has a ban on tobacco funding, and for decades we have had a ban on smoking on our campus. I think it was in the 1990s that we actually banned smoking in buildings and in vehicles, long before it became fashionable.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Dr. Davidson. That's all I need from you at present.

I want to ask my last question of Freeze the Industry.

This is all about young people here. Why don't I leave the last word to you? What do you want this committee and Parliament to know about what you want to see with the packaging of tobacco products?

[Maxime Le]

We know that branding and marketing directly influence youth. If the industry does not think that packaging influences anything, we're not sure why they are so vehemently determined to keep the 25% of marketing leeway they currently have.

What we would want to see is indeed that they introduce plain and standardized packaging to make those health messages readily available, and just to know that some people may argue that even though the packages may be hidden behind power walls in convenience stores or whatnot, they are still exposed in our society and people can still look at them anywhere they go. They're littered in the streets; they're poking out of people's pockets; they're flashed around during smoke breaks.

We want to reiterate that we urge this committee and the government to introduce and legislate plain and standardized packaging, but to do it correctly and make sure that all the loopholes for any marketing or leeway that the industry could have are closed and secured forever.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Thank you very much.

Now we'll go to Ms. Sidhu for the last questions.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is for Dr. Davidson. I want to ask about the relationship between the Institute of Public Affairs, which you have been connected with as a senior research fellow, and the tobacco industry. Has the IPA received funding from the tobacco industry?

[Prof. Sinclair Davidson]

I read on my tobacco control page that the IPA took funding from the tobacco industry, with evidence relating back to 1993. It turns out that in 1993 I wasn't even in Australia, so I don't know how this would affect me.

The other thing to bear in mind is that tobacco advertising in Australia wasn't illegal in 1993, so I wouldn't be surprised if the IPA took money from the tobacco industry in 1993. I wouldn't be surprised if major newspaper groups took funding from the tobacco industry in 1993. As a matter of fact, I hope you are shocked to hear that the Australian Labor Party was soliciting donations from the tobacco industry as recently as 2011, so they may very well have taken money from the tobacco industry in the distant past, but to be quite honest, so was everybody. It was a legal industry that was advertising, that was promoting its products. It's hard to get excited about this.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

My second question is about your recent trip to Canada, where you opposed plain packaging. Is it the case that the Canadian Convenience Stores Association sponsors your travel?

[Prof. Sinclair Davidson]

Yes.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Thank you.

I'll pass the questioning over to John.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Great. I didn't realize we were sharing. Thank you.

Dr. Davidson, we did see some quite strong evidence of a reduction in youth smoking in Australia with the introduction of plain packaging. Were there also public campaigns to go with the changes in tobacco advertising? Do you remember back to that period?

[Prof. Sinclair Davidson]

I don't think there's been specific advertising targeting youth smoking in Australia. I don't recall. The state governments run anti-tobacco advertising on national television and they generally speaking focus on all the smokers and on health effects. If you have a look at the rationalization economics model of smoking, if you want to stop kids from smoking you work through a price mechanism, and as I said, there have been massive increases in excise pricing in Australia over the last eight years. If you want to stop older people from smoking, you emphasize the health aspect of it.

I don't recall there being a specific campaign targeted at youth, but certainly that happens through the schools. The primary and secondary education systems, for example, have a very strong anti-smoking flavour to them in their public health classes.

I've been very surprised to hear that Canadian youth don't know that smoking is bad for them, because Australian youth certainly get that message very clearly from the education system.

[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.

[Akehil Johnson]

I believe Freeze the Industry would support the recommendations made by the Canadian Cancer Society. We would support anything that we can do to further get the point across that this is dangerous and that friendly shouldn't be deadly.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Okay, thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

The time is up.

I want to thank all of our guests for the different perspectives they brought to the committee. We're not anywhere near through this process, but we really appreciate all of the different perspectives and the way you've delivered your information and help to us.

And thank you, Dr. Davidson, the invisible witness, for being with us.

With that, I adjourn the meeting.