Health Committee on Feb. 28th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Go ahead, Ms. Finley.

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

I think it's important that we set out as we mean to go on. We need a context in which to decide which of these other amendments are applicable, or whether they're okay as is, or whether they need to be modified. We can't do this unless we know what it is we're talking about, whether there should be separate rules for one product from another, or slight interpretations, or indeed, additions to the amendment, to clarify. We won't know that if we don't know specifically what it is we're talking about.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

I believe we avoid that issue by delaying and deferring CPC-1 to the very end. I know your point, but I believe that's resolved that issue. We won't be dealing with that until we get to the first batch of amendments later on, and that will decide whether we have to do CPC-1.

Mr. McKinnon.

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

If the discussion is done, I'm done, but if we need to carry it on, I just wanted to make a point. Because Ms. Gladu's motion specifically deals with the term “heat stick” that until we get to those definitions we don't know whether we need a specific definition at this point. In support of the deferment, let's wait till we get to those items, deal with those items, and then we can come back as we have some context for this definition.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Not to belabour the point, but there's no debate that's happening right now. We're not debating whether it's a good amendment or not. In light of the advice from the ministerial staff, “heat stick” is already included in the definition. It's already covered by the act. I remain open to being corrected by legislative counsel here, but just as we don't have separate definitions for every kind of cigarette device—they're covered under “tobacco product”—I don't think as a matter of legislative drafting we would pull out of that and define one piece of that if it's already covered under a general definition. Whether or not there are other sections in the act on heat sticks that we may want to pass, or not, we don't need a definition of “heat stick” if it's already covered under a general definition. Otherwise, you would be rolling out every single type of specific product: heat stick, vaping pen, etc. You wouldn't need to do that if it's covered generally.

If we're confident in the advice we're getting, that heat sticks are already covered under that, then I think we can deal with that now. Under no circumstances would we be amending the act to include a definition of heat stick when it's already covered, I think. I don't know if counsel has any advice on that, whether it would be prudent to flesh that out.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Go ahead.

[James Van Loon]

I'll go a little deeper in the hope of providing a bit of additional clarity.

If we look at the definition of “tobacco product”, which is on page 2:

It includes papers, tubes and filters intended for use with [products that are made of tobacco and] a device, other than a water pipe, that is necessary for the use of that product and the parts that may be used with the device.

That device framing there, that is intended to capture the products that are used to heat tobacco. That puts those inside the definition of “tobacco product”.

Then if we go over to the definition of “vaping product”, and look down at the bottom, so now I'm no page 3:

It does not include devices and substances or mixtures of substances that are excluded by the regulations, tobacco products or their accessories.

So because those devices became tobacco products, they are not vaping products. This is an amendment, to put in this device thing, and it's purpose is to capture these heated tobacco products.

The last thing I would mention on that is this enables a bunch of regulatory authorities within the act. Those things can be fairly nuanced, and different products can be treated differently under those regulatory authorities if need be.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. Oliver.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

My intent in suggesting we defer the amendment—we have, what, 40-some amendments to discuss and debate to go through here—it was to exactly avoid that discussion that just took five to eight minutes, that we didn't have to have if we weren't going to have the other amendments. But since we've had them, rather than waste our time and come back to this one again and reacquaint ourselves with it, I'm going to suggest that we vote on this proposed amendment now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Okay.

I see heads nodding, so all in favour of this amendment? All opposed?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes and Proceedings])

(Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to)

(On clause 5)

Now we go to clause 5.

I believe there's an amendment there from the NDP. Can one of the NDP members describe it, please?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I've been nominated by the NDP caucus. I won't belabour this. This amends the purpose section to include the additional purposes to reduce the burden of addiction, disease, and death from tobacco use, and to incorporate the very oft-repeated goal that we've heard from the health minister and others to reduce the prevalence of the use of tobacco products every year to no more than 5% of the population by the year 2035.

I think this is a desirable amendment because it would allow a broader range of measures under the act. The minister testified before the committee that she wants to achieve that objective, so I think these goals would be more achievable if the government had legislative authority to aim for it in the purposes section.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. Ayoub.

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

If I understand the amendment correctly, I would say it's a little redundant.

Clause 4(1) of the bill talks about “implicating tobacco use in the incidence of numerous debilitating and fatal diseases”.

It is very similar to paragraph (e) of amendment NDP-1, which talks about reducing dependence on tobacco products. That's clear. The purpose of the bill is to reduce tobacco use, its consequences, and the resulting number of debilitating and fatal diseases. It's all connected and it's redundant.

It then seeks “to reduce the rate of use of tobacco products to no more than 5% of Canadians by 2035.”

Any goal like that is generally laudable. That said, I think setting such a goal now is premature. According to scientific reports, the political will, even the development of the public, can change. Given that the bill is already very broad in scope, I think it's redundant and it does not add anything.

I therefore propose that this amendment not be passed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Not to belabour the point, but I think the point of redundancy is well taken but not exactly accurate, because the purpose talks about protecting the health of Canadians in light of conclusive evidence implicating tobacco use in the instance of numerous debilitating and fatal diseases, whereas the first purpose that I propose to amend specifically incorporates the purpose of reducing dependence on tobacco products. That is missing from the current purpose.

In terms of reducing the rate of use of tobacco products to no more than 5% by 2035, Mr. Ayoub has made exactly the case for why it should be in the act, because presently it is only a political objective. What I'm proposing is to take a political objective that can change and vary, and make it a legislative requirement. If we're serious about reducing smoking rates in this country to 5% by 2035, which I dare say everybody in this room probably supports, I think putting the proverbial money where your mouth is and putting it in legislation, as opposed to just mouthing it in political platitudes, is called for.

With that, those are my arguments, and I would call for a recorded vote on this matter, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Okay. No more debate? I call for a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Okay, I declare the motion defeated.

(Clause 5 agreed to)

I see no amendments for clause 6.

(Clauses 6 to 8 inclusive agreed to)

We have clause 9, with amendment CPC-2 proposed. Does somebody want to speak to that?

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

Yes.

The topic of conversation here is that everyone who is making their fantastic flavour for vaping, or their specially concocted tobacco-type product has their secret recipe or secret formula. We know that some of the information is allowed to be disclosed, but we want to make sure that if things wouldn't be disclosed because they're protected otherwise, that we wouldn't have to disclose them and that's what this section is about.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Okay.

Mr. McKinnon.

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

I believe that this amendment would limit the Minister of Health's ability to provide timely and relevant information on tobacco products to the public, which is a contradiction to the purpose of the bill, which is to protect the health and safety of Canadians, and it would reduce the government's ability to create greater openness and transparency.

I will oppose this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Ms. Gladu.

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

This doesn't prevent a timely response for data that normally would be released. It just says that normally the information would not be released under the access to information, that it wouldn't be given to the public.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Is there any other debate?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 9 agreed to)

(Clause 10 agreed to)

(On clause 11)

We have CPC-3.

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

This is an attempt to protect consumers and also public safety.

We had many discussions about the spread of illegal cigarettes in this country. Believe me, it's a lot worse and with a much greater impact than most of us in this room have acknowledged. I know this personally from over 40 years experience with this industry. Illegal tobacco has been named as the key contributor financially to the blowing up of the twin towers. This is how serious this is. Whether people like to believe that or not, it has been proven to be a fact.

By going to plain packaging, plain tubes, plain filters, etc., both law enforcement and consumers are going to have a very difficult time identifying whether they're getting legal cigarettes. I think that having some markings will help mitigate the spread of tobacco, which by the way, in Canada is a much bigger problem than it was in places like Australia or England because we and our neighbours to the south actually have tobacco-growing industries, some of which are legal here. Neither illegal nor legal tobacco-growing industries exist in those other two countries.