Health Committee on Feb. 28th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Dr. Eyolfson.

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

As a clarification, I don't want to get off the rails, but no reputable scientific source has ever determined that any illegal contraband activity goes up with plain packaging. And the link to the twin towers is absolutely absurd.

That being said, this is unnecessary because there is already provision, from proposed subparagraph 11(2)(b.1), that the Governor in Council can make regulations respecting markings, so this is a level of detail that's not needed in this bill, so I am going to oppose it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. Lobb.

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

Many of us have been around and we've seen this show before, going clause by clause with various amendments for clause-by-clause consideration. I know that each of the Liberals have their pieces of paper in front of them and they're to speak on each clause and tell us why it isn't going to pass, and that's great.

I would just ask if the Liberals have any amendments to clauses that we have put forward or the NDP have put forward that they'll actually support, because as much as I'd like to sit here until six o'clock and have a university debate on each clause, if there are none they're going to support, we might as well get on with it.

I don't know what anybody else thinks about that, but I'm not a great guy for wasting time. I'll waste my own, but I don't want to waste others'. I don't know why we're going through this if they aren't going to support any of these.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

The chair can't predict how it's going to go. We have to go through clause-by-clause.

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

I would ask Mr. Oliver what he has to say about it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Do you want to speak?

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

I think we should proceed through them. I think it's important that the people viewing hear the rationale for proposed amendments and hear the rationale for not supporting or supporting those amendments. I think it's worth proceeding through it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

I'll go to Ms. Gladu.

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

I have a real concern about contraband. In my riding there's a significant amount of contraband and I do feel it would be helpful to have the markings. We did hear some testimony from people who said yes it would help to have markings on the cigarettes. While I know it can be put into the regulations, I don't want to leave it to the whim of the regulators to do that when it's such an important discussion that we've had as we've talked about the plain packaging debate. So for that reason I would prefer to keep it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I think this is going to come up a little later with some NDP amendments, which I'll move a little later, to require health warnings on cigarettes and other tobacco products and the products themselves.

I have to say two things. One is that I agree with Dr. Eyolfson when he says that we've never seen or heard any convincing peer-reviewed evidence that shows any link between plain packaging and increased contraband. I know that claim is made, but I haven't seen any reliable evidence that it's the case. I want that on the record.

Second, it may just be my limited intellect, but I have never quite understood the argument being made as to why the regulating of a package or even the product has anything whatsoever to do with increasing or decreasing contraband as a matter of theory. If the concern is that contraband manufacturers are going to copy legitimate products as a means of confusing law enforcement officials, they'll do that whatever the packaging is.

Apparently they're doing it now, according to Ms. Finley. If they're copying contraband cigarettes now, with the packaging, they'll do it after the packaging changes. Frankly, I'd rather contraband manufacturers copy products that have very, very prominent health warnings on them, than the current situation.

It's not that I don't have a concern for contraband cigarettes. I think Ms. Finley has made the case powerfully that she's concerned about the contraband industry, and I think we share that. What I'm not convinced of, after listening to all of the testimony and reviewing the evidence, is that plain packaging or somehow limiting the plain packaging force, power, or requirements, has any bearing on that.

That's why I'll be opposing the motion, not because I'm not concerned about contraband.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Dr. Eyolfson.

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

[Inaudible]

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

You're good?

Mr. McKinnon.

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

I just want to make the point that the tax stamp that's on the packages already, is a mark of authenticity. We heard a number of witnesses say that it doesn't matter. If people can counterfeit a tax stamp that is designed to thwart counterfeiters, unfortunately, they're not going to have any trouble at all copying anything else.

So I don't really see the point of this. I appreciate the concern but I think it's just irrelevant.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

All in favour of CPC-3?

All opposed?

Motion defeated.

Shall clause 11 carry as it is?

All in favour?

All right. Clause 11 carries.

Clauses 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. I see no amendments. Can they carry?

Carried.

All right we go to clause 18. I have a notice of an amendment.

Dr. Eyolfson.

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Is there any further debate?

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

If this amendment were passed, then, and cannabis gets a DIN number, could it then be vaped under the legislation? That's a question for our experts.

[Denis Choinière, Director, Tobacco Products Regulatory Office, Department of Health]

One of the amendments that will be brought later on is to clarify how the cannabis act will interface with this. I can give the details at that time, or I can give you them now.

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

This amendment doesn't impact that, then.

[Denis Choinière]

Not at all. This is for controlled substances under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Is there any further debate?

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 18 as amended agreed to)

(Clause 19 agreed to)

(On clause 20)

We'll now go to clause 20, with NDP-2.

[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.