Health Committee on Feb. 28th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I certainly agree with Mr. Oliver. In substance we join on the issue of it, but I would point out that as the mover of it, he should move it certainly as a subset of improvement, but with no honour. Given what just occurred, I have to point out the disingenuousness of his last comment by making a reference to the fact that this motion contained words of renumbering the remaining provisions and amending references to it accordingly as being an advantage of his motion when he just voted against adding those exact words to the NDP amendment must be recorded for posterity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

All right. I call for a vote on...Mr. Oliver.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

I just wanted to reiterate again the comments I made with respect to Mr. Lobb's subamendment on the previous motion. To me, the gamesmanship is on Mr. Davies' side of the table here. We had a motion, it had differences from his motion. We're in a committee process here. We're going amendment by amendment and motion by motion and trying to build up your own motion because you see other things coming further down the road that you think make your motion better. I don't think that's what our committee process is about. I think enough said on this. We should have the vote. It's just about good committee process and the transparency of how we're dealing with these motions and what you bring to the table in the first go, not what you build sitting here after everybody else's amendments are in front of you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. Lobb.

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

Since Mr. Oliver brought that up, basically it was a technicality; basically.

If you want to be collegial on a committee, you could have given it to Mr. Davies. I mean, you guys will get all yours passed. You could have given one—[Inaudible—Editor] gave him one earlier, could have given two—and that would have been pretty nice of you to do.

I think that would have been a very nice, collegial thing to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

If Lib-6 is adopted, NDP-6 cannot be moved, and Lib-8, Lib-12, and Lib-14 are also adopted as a consequence.

All those in favour of Lib-6? It's going to be interesting.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We now have to bypass NDP-6 and go to Lib-7.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

I'll be withdrawing Lib-7.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Okay. That's withdrawn.

Now we go to NDP-7.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This amendment is directed at a different part of vaping promotions. It has to do with incentives.

This would add restrictions on the location of permitted incentive promotions. It would restrict permitted incentive promotions, for example price discounts, to specialty vaping product retail stores. At present Bill S-5 would permit, in places where young people do not have legal access, extensive incentive promotions for vaping products. But as we heard, although young people may not have access to these locations, these are places like bars, casinos, concerts, where non-smokers would be exposed. So for much the same reason we want to ensure that advertising is not targeted at non-smokers for nicotine, we want to make sure that incentive promotions are not targeted at non-smokers as well.

Again, Mr. Chair, I just want to reiterate that the only merit we heard from vaping products for tobacco is they are a preferable nicotine delivery system to tobacco. Nobody says they're safe and nobody says that there are health benefits to them and nobody wants any Canadian who presently doesn't ingest nicotine to take up the habit of ingesting nicotine by vaping products, so why would we permit incentive promotions to be targeted at non-smokers?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. Ayoub.

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

Once again, I fully understand the meaning of the amendment, but its scope will eventually make it conflict with provincial and territorial legislation, since we do not fully and definitively know where the vaping products will be sold. We know in some cases, but it remains to be determined in other cases. This will therefore create a conflict.

The advertising aspect, the promotion of the products, can also pose a problem. The rules governing the sale of vaping products will be stricter than those governing the sale of tobacco products. We want to protect young people and even adults, and we want the rules to be consistent, but there must be a balance. We have to inform the public, the people, but we must not promote products related to tobacco use in particular.

For those reasons, we will vote against the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Okay.

Seeing no further debate, all in favour of NDP-7?

Yes, Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I wanted to ask the ministerial staff.

Mr. Ayoub mentioned he felt there could be jurisdictional issues with this amendment. Quite honestly, this legislation is riddled with references to controlling promotion, marketing, and advertising, which I would imagine fall under provincial legislation normally. I would guess that under tobacco legislation the federal government has clear jurisdictional authority to make laws concerning promotion and advertising, and we've done it all over the bill. Is there any legitimacy to Mr. Ayoub's claim this amendment may have posed jurisdictional issues with the provinces? Or perhaps the legislative clerk can offer some opinion.

[Denis Choinière]

Parliament has the authority under criminal law to limit some activities, but usually not to the point to decide this type of retail establishment versus that other type of establishment, which the amendment in front of us does not do, but it does end up limiting vape shops. That will not allow youth in there for both types of activities, that is the activity of making an offer and the activity of furnishing. It would narrow, if you want, the activities that would be allowed for promoting and providing the product.

As it stands right now in the bill, as we mentioned before, we're trying to find a balance, where adults who would not necessarily be in those locations, in vape shops, but other locations where youth are not allowed would be able to receive the offer, but not to be provided with the product. That was the balance that was being aimed for.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

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?

[James Van Loon]

Thank you for the question.

Keeping in mind that sites for adults only, where children and young people are not permitted, are the places where informational advertising for tobacco is still permitted, the balance we're trying to go after there is allowing additional promotional abilities for vaping products in those same places.

I'd say at the same time, though, that this prevents people giving away vaping products. That's 30.5. This is only about the offer, and then actually any delivery on that consideration has to be in a vaping store.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I have a question. Do we allow similar promotions for tobacco products? Can a tobacco company go into a bar and say, “Here's a contest to win a carton of cigarettes. You've got to pick it up in the retail store”? Do we allow that?

[James Van Loon]

No, we don't allow that.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Then why would we allow it for vaping products?

[James Van Loon]

Again, we're trying to strike a balance between protecting people from inducements and offering a viable pathway, a safer alternative, to cigarettes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Any other comments or debates?

We'll call for a vote on NDP-7.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Could we have a recorded vote, Mr. Chair, please.