Evidence of meeting #94 for Health in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5 p.m.
Director General, Tobacco Control Directorate, Department of Health
As Bill S-5 is currently drafted, it would not allow that.
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
Thank you. Seeing no further comment, I'm going to call for a vote on CPC-6. All in favour? Opposed? The motion is defeated—
5 p.m.
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
Chair, I think if you check the record, there were four voting yes and two voting no and one not voting. I've been watching very carefully. I know Dr. Eyolfson voted for our—
5 p.m.
Liberal
Doug Eyolfson Liberal Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
[Inaudible—Editor] I withdraw my.... My hand was up and that was my error in putting it up at the wrong time. That's my error.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
But he did vote for it and I think we need to check the record on that, because we actually had more yeas on that one than we did nays.
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
I saw more nays, but we'll do it again if you like.
I'm going to call for another vote on it.
All in favour of the amendment? Three. All opposed? Five.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes and Proceedings])
Now we go to CPC-7.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Diane Finley Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON
The intent here is the same: to allow the minister flexibility in terms of providing restrictions in regulation rather than legislation.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Doug Eyolfson Liberal Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
I oppose this. I think it could have the same hazards as those brought up on the last amendment.
We have a long record of the tobacco industry promoting certain products as less harmful when there's been no evidence of that. Given the difficulty in clawing something back once you approve something, if anything is coming out and making the claim that it's less harmful or relatively less harmful, I think there should be sufficient time to review it through another legislative cycle. I think the clause as written protects the public from being deceived that certain types of tobacco products are less harmful when in fact they're not.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Diane Finley Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON
I'm confused. It seems to me that both arguments on these say that the minister is going to be subject to pleadings by the manufacturers, whereas my experience with ministers is that they're above and beyond that: they are informed and they have the best interests of Canadians at heart, not the best interests of the tobacco industry. I'm curious as to whether the member has any confidence in any minister, including the existing one. From the sounds of it, I would say no.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Doug Eyolfson Liberal Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
It's not a matter of confidence in the minister. It's the fact that if any new product is coming that is making such a claim there should be a very long and detailed discussion of it that I think should be subject to the legislative process.
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
All those in favour of CPC-7? Three. All those opposed? Six.
(Amendment negatived)
Shall clause 27 carry?
(Clause 27 agreed to)
On clause 28, I see no amendments. Okay.
(Clause 28 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 29)
Now we go to CPC-8.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Diane Finley Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON
This is similar in nature to the others, recognizing that due diligence needs to be done to prove that there is harm reduction from new products, but if that research is or becomes available, then I think this is in the interests of achieving the stated goals of this legislation, which are to help people reduce their smoking and to reduce their nicotine intake. This was evidenced by almost all the witnesses who said that assistance and alternate products are needed, and that if we don't make allowances for this new research, the legislative process, with all respect, could take 10 to 12 years to happen. That's an awful lot of people who could die in the meantime because the legislative process is stopping them from pursuing something legally and products becoming available to them that could save their lives.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Sonia Sidhu Liberal Brampton South, ON
Thank you, Chair. I want to oppose this amendment because we don't have enough evidence that it's less harmful than smoking cigarettes, and this government is taking a cautious approach to regulating heated tobacco products until sufficient independent research emerges that they are safer than tobacco products. Right now, there is no evidence for that. That's why I oppose this amendment.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
I want to second that, particularly in light of the evidence I heard here from the ministry. It may well be that heat sticks eventually are established as less harmful than tobacco, but I don't think that's been established. I'm not confident that it's the case.
I'll state my bias for the record. I think we should be having the strictest tobacco control regulations and laws in the world. Tobacco products are inherently dangerous. They're carcinogens. They're highly addictive. We should be doing everything we can to help current smokers stop smoking and to prevent anybody from picking up any form of nicotine or tobacco product whatsoever.
I understand that this may not be what the tobacco industry wants, but that's not the purpose of the health committee here. We're charged and entrusted with making policies and laws that are in the best interests of the health of Canadians. If there is any doubt whatsoever, any doubt that a measure that's being proposed may lead to someone being exposed to the additional dangers of smoking, then I think it's incumbent upon us to oppose that measure. I will be opposing this one for that reason.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
I wondered if Ms. Sidhu could tell us the difference between smoking marijuana—a marijuana cigarette, if you want to call it that—compared to a heat stick or a cigarette stick, whatever they want to call it. Where's the evidence for that?
I know it's apples to oranges, but we're so concerned about heat sticks right now and what everything's going to do for heat sticks. I'm pretty sure a marijuana joint or whatever you're going to do is going to have more impact on you than a heat stick, yet we can't wait to have marijuana. I understand that it's apples to oranges, but I'm also puzzled by the fact we hear these arguments on the other side about heat sticks, yet we're ready to pipe marijuana till the cows come home. I'm not quite sure how we do that.
