Thank you for that. I'm not clear that I have an answer to the jurisdictional question on that, but I want to read into the record what the amendment says. It would say,
No manufacturer or retailer shall, in a place other than a retail establishment where vaping products are ordinarily sold and to which young persons do not have access,
(a) provide or offer to provide any consideration, direct or indirect, for the purchase of a vaping product, including a gift to a purchaser or third party, bonus, premium, cash rebate or right to participate in a game, draw, lottery or contest; or
(b) furnish or offer to furnish a vaping product in consideration of the purchase of a product or service or the performance of a service unless the product purchased is a vaping product.
That's the amendment under consideration here. I guess it gets to the basic point where, do we as a health committee favour, or do we not favour, a provision in this act that would stop the manufacturers of vaping products from giving gifts or contests or trying to lure by giving some sort of advantage to people to vape nicotine. I don't know what the balance is there. I don't think as a health committee we should be passing a law that allows the incentivizing of people to purchase vaping products in any context.
I'm wondering, where's the balance for that? What is the valid public health rationale for letting vaping companies try to incentivize people to use vaping products, other than in a retail store for vaping? What possible social value is there in letting vaping companies give gifts to lure people in places like concerts or bars or hockey arenas? Can you help me with the balance? What is the corresponding balance of the advantage of such consideration or luring?