Health Committee on Feb. 28th, 2018

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

This turns to the flavours part of the bill, and we heard some evidence about this. If I understand it correctly, and perhaps ministerial staff can correct me or add some information if they feel it's necessary, the legislative scheme that's set out is to ban flavours in vaping products that are scheduled. So only the flavours that are scheduled are banned.

We heard some testimony about the undesirability of such an approach, particularly given the creativity of the tobacco and nicotine industry. There was some worry that there would be an endless chasing of the tobacco and nicotine industry as they come up with ever more creative flavours and ways to describe those flavours.

The purpose of this amendment is to restrict promotions for all flavours that could be appealing to young people rather than just those set out in schedule 3. The prohibition on promoting vaping devices containing flavours set out in schedule 3, we believe is too narrow. The scheduling approach would also force the government, as I've said, to constantly play catch-up, as to evade regulation the industry develops new flavours that aren't already listed.

This amendment would still permit the sale of flavoured vaping products, but it would prohibit promotions for all flavours that could be appealing to young people. Again, I think we are all in agreement that all nicotine products should in no way be made appealing to young people. We all should agree that the tobacco industry is like the zombie of the corporate world. It continues to come, no matter what the regulation, to try to make its products appealing. It will exploit every loophole, shade every regulation. Rest assured, nobody in this room should have any doubt that if we don't take every step to close doors in this legislation, that industry will find ways to try to make its products appealing to everybody.

I think everybody on this committee heard very disturbing testimony that...I can't remember the exact numbers but over 80% of people begin smoking before they're 18. Obviously when the industry is dealing with a highly addictive substance like nicotine, it has a great incentive to try to get young people to try its products. Because they're highly addicted, they'll be addicted very quickly. Then it has consumers who find it very difficult to quit.

I'm the worst kind of non-smoker, I'm a reformed non-smoker. I smoked for 16 years and I quit for 16 years and I tell you I tried to quit every day for 16 years. It's literally the hardest thing I've ever had to do. Let's close the door on flavours in here that could be appealing to young people, colleagues. Yes, it might make it more difficult for industry. It may have to make sure that it's flavouring its products—for smoking cessation, by the way—because we're not trying to create vaping products that are attractive to nicotine users. We're trying to direct them as a smoking cessation tool for current smokers.

We did hear evidence that the flavouring assists in that delivery. That's fine. Maybe there can be some menthol, certain kinds of flavourings that are targeted to adults. But let's close the door on allowing any possibility of flavouring vaping products that might be attractive to children.

I hope I can get my colleagues' support for this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Okay.

Dr. Eyolfson.

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

I agree with everything you're saying on this.

The provisions you're talking about to prohibit this are in proposed section 3.46. However, the problem I have with your amendment could have the opposite effect of what you intend in that the related provisions right now that would be replaced are needed to provide some flexibility. Later on some evidence might show some sort of flavouring or some sort of additive that we don't think right now is appealing to young people, and it might turn out to be. It gives the legislative flexibility to do that. It's covered in the later clause, but it may remove the flexibility as well to add other flavours and things like that. So for that I'll oppose it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I would like to refer my colleagues to schedule 3. This is what it says now. Here's what's banned. Confectionery, dessert, cannabis, soft drink, and energy drink. Those are the categories. Those are loopholes you can drive a truck through.

I think anybody voting against this amendment should have no illusion that once this bill becomes law, there will be vaping products that have all sorts of flavours to them that will be appealing to children. Then the only option at that point is to let the market be exposed and then try to play regulatory catch-up.

Here's the problem with it. Every day that you will allow a tobacco or nicotine product out in the market is a day that someone's going to start and try it. Because of the highly addictive nature of the substance, people are going to get addicted. Because of the highly addictive nature of it, those people are going to find it very difficult to quit.

We also heard evidence by the way—this was not fleshed out a lot—I think Dr. Strang said at the last meeting that he felt there was some evidence people who start vaping may the pick up tobacco products.

What we're doing by not closing the door on this right now is letting the industry come up with their sophisticated flavouring. Young people are going to be attracted. Young people are going to start. They are going to get hooked. Some of them are going to move on to tobacco products, and then maybe once it gets up to the rarified attention of the order of cabinet, by that time we will make some legislative changes to the schedule. By that time, it's too late. A certain number of those Canadians will be hooked, and a certain number will die. Let's rest assured that's what we're doing by not approving this amendment now.

I would just say one other thing, colleagues. It's better to review this. This is new legislation. Vaping products have never been regulated in this country. This is the very first regulatory regime we are putting in place. Let's err on the side of making it very tight on flavouring. If, Dr. Eyolfson, your concerns come to pass, then we can always loosen the regulations later. But by leaving flavouring open now, we are basically subjecting Canadians to known health consequences that we could prevent right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. Eyolfson.

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

The last thing I'm going to say about this is first of all this is covered in the other provisions 30.46 and 30.48. I'm not suggesting that this removes the authority to loosen it. Your amendment removes the authority to tighten it up, and that's why I'm opposing it. I want to accomplish everything you're talking about. This amendment will not accomplish that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Sorry, I didn't understand Dr. Eyolfson's comment, because it certainly was not our intention to do the opposite of what it intends. The amendment says that “No person shall promote a vaping product, including by means of the”—and then it adds the words—“that the product has a flavour that could be appealing to young persons.”

I don't know how in any way tightening the flavouring prohibitions in the act to make sure they could not convince young persons could have any intended effect other than to make flavouring less appealing to young persons.

I'm sorry. What section is he referring to? Is it 30.46? I just want to make sure I understand what those sections are that have his concern. Is it section 30.46? I'm sorry, it's difficult numbering. Is it 30.4, 30.6, and 30.8? It's section 30.46. Let me get to that. Is it subsection 30.46(1)?

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

Yes, and then the end of that sentence “appealing to young persons”.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

It says:

No person shall display on a vaping product or on its package an indication or illustration, including a brand element, that could cause a person to believe that the product is flavoured if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the indication or illustration could be appealing to young persons.

That's what I thought it was but the difference there, Dr. Eyolfson, is that that's a regulation that is targeted at the indication or illustration on the package, not the flavouring itself.

My amendment refers to schedule 3 and it talks about actually prohibiting manufacturers from flavouring their products at all with flavours that could be appealing to children.

This section talks about how that may be indicated on the package to children. I would respectfully suggest there's a difference between those two.

I don't know. If I'm wrong, maybe if the Ministry has any opinion on that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Is there any other comment?

I'm going to bring NDP-8 to a vote.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

We have a request for a recorded vote.

All in favour of NDP-8?

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 38 agreed to)

(Clauses 39 to 43 inclusive agreed to)

On clause 44, we have NDP-9.

This cannot be moved because LIB-6 was adopted and this negates that. NDP-9 is out. What about LIB-8? It's the same thing.

Shall clause 44 carry?

Ms. Gladu.

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

We can vote on that. I was just going to point out that it's 6:10. I thought the meeting was going to go until 6:00.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

We started the meeting [Inaudible—Editor], we're done at around 6:15...

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

There's another committee coming in at 6:30, so we're good until 6:15, if that's all right with everybody. We'll just carry on. We're making good progress.

Shall clause 44 carry as amended?

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Sorry, does that includes LIB-8?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Yes.

(Clause 44 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 45 to 51 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 52)

We have LIB-9 on clause 52. If adopted, LIB-10 is also adopted as a consequence.

Dr. Eyolfson.

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

Basically this provides the government with the ability to more rapidly respond to health concerns related to tobacco. It means that the regulatory process would apply to tobacco regulations so this wouldn't.... It would make the government more reactive to respond to changes in the market and changes in products.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

All those in favour of LIB-9?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 52 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 53)

On clause 53, we have LIB-10. It's already adopted.

On clause 53, we also have LIB-11.

Dr. Eyolfson.

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

I'd like to propose the amendment as listed. Basically this amendment relates to clause 18, so it modifies clause 53. It allows substances regulated by the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to be excluded from regulation. It allows the use of prescription products.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Is there any discussion?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 53 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 54 to 60 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 61)

We have Liberal-12.

It's already adopted. Perfect.

(Clause 61 as amended agreed to)

On clause 62, I see no amendments, so I'm going to declare that carried.

(Clause 62 agreed to)

(On clause 63)

We go to Liberal-13.

Ms. Sidhu.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would like to propose that Bill S-5 in clause 63 be amended by replacing line 32 on page 40 with the following:

(2), 23.1(1) or (2) or 23.2(1) or (2), section 23.3, subsection 24(1) or (2), section 25,

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Ms. Gladu.