Debates of Jan. 30th, 2018

Tobacco and Vaping Products Act

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, of course this is not the government's message; this is the Senate's message. Again, it is evident that the appointed senators are not as independent as some people might have once thought. I was always somewhat skeptical.

On the issue of access to marijuana versus access to tobacco, the member suggested that, because of regulations, tobacco is harder to get than marijuana for young people. The reality is that marijuana is much easier to grow than tobacco. As someone put it to me once, they call it a weed for a reason. The fact that marijuana is easier to grow influences its accessibility. Legalizing is not going to change that. In fact, it will make it easier to access.

The other point to make, with respect to the ease of access to marijuana that people generally have now, is that it comes down to the intensity with which these things are policed. People who speak about a war on drugs I don't think have observed the reality of the way in which, by and large, marijuana is policed in the current context. There are certainly ways of improving our approach to this, which is why we favour a ticketing option.

The member concluded her question by asking what other things we can do to reduce use of smoking, but my time is up, so maybe I will come back to that later.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. We are talking a lot about prevention, and we always support increased investment in prevention.

With respect to tobacco products and their users, one quarter of young people between the ages of 15 and 19 have experimented with vaping. The tobacco industry also targets vulnerable and marginalized populations, such as first nations between the ages of 12 and 17, divorced, separated or widowed women, street kids and the Inuit. There are many types of vulnerable people.

Does my colleague not think that the bill should include a strategy aimed at having the industry contribute financially to the fight against tobacco so that we can achieve healthier social conditions?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting idea from the member. At the same time, we do not want to encourage the government to include too many different issues in the same bill. Frankly, we already have a bill that deals with two very distinct issues: the question of plain packaging and the question around regulation of vaping. As much as possible, we want to see legislation that allows members to deliberate and consider separate proposals separately.

With respect to the previous question from my Liberal colleague about the strategies we would propose for reducing smoking, by and large we see that the current strategy of providing significant information, labelling, and making sure people are aware from a young age of the risks is having an effect. When we alter the strategy, it is important to demonstrate whether that has a different effect, greater or less, and to evaluate it on that basis. At a minimum, we could ensure there is the same kind of prevention message and regulation with respect to marijuana. The government says it is going to strictly regulate it, but it is not regulating it at the same level that tobacco is already regulated, which is quite revealing. It is something important for members to consider when they evaluate the government's claim to be serious about limiting access to marijuana to young and other vulnerable populations.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the member's speech. It is a little ridiculous, given the way the government is proposing to regulate marijuana while in this bill it is actually saying that vaping products cannot have that flavour. It is a bit of a mixed message.

More importantly, on the plain packaging, for that measure to even have any chance of success, there would need to be some way of differentiating between illegal contraband tobacco and legal tobacco. The way the government has presented it is the CRA excise stamp would indicate what is a legal product.

The member raised in his speech that, again, organized crime contraband tobacco does not face the same costs. Other members, including the member for Malpeque, have said that we do not know what is in illegal contraband tobacco. That is a legitimate health issue.

We have heard from industry at committee that those stamps have gotten onto baggies of contraband tobacco. Does the member believe that we need to investigate that, either as a committee of the whole in Parliament or as a particular parliamentary committee, and have CRA come and explain this? If that process is not sound, all of this legislation is for naught.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent point. There is a risk, especially when there is the potential misuse of a stamp suggesting that a product is legal, that people will be confused about what is and is not a legal product. This is especially true for young people. Adults going to a store that sells cigarettes can have some degree of assurance, hopefully, that they are buying a legal product. They would expect the proprietor would have done the necessary due diligence on that. However, a young person who is accessing cigarettes indirectly is much more vulnerable to getting contraband tobacco in the context of a plain packaging environment. It is something we need to be aware of, and we need to analyze the risks in a clear-headed way.

There may be other ways of addressing the contraband tobacco issue. I think the member is right to suggest that this is something the committee could dig into further, around how we could fight back against these contraband products that create a real risk. This is something that should not be dismissed. The risk of contraband and the impact it could have is quite significant.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, since the member delved into the issue of Bill C-45 and the legalization of cannabis, I wonder if he would allow me to also pursue some aspects of that program that I have concerns about.

I am definitely in favour of Bill C-45 and the legalization of cannabis, but I do see that we are moving in a direction that there is a presumption that cannabis cannot be grown outdoors and we need to move it indoors. In the state of Colorado where cannabis is legal, the city of Denver's growing operations for cannabis alone now constitute 2% of all the electricity demand for the state of Colorado.

From a carbon footprint point of view, I am very concerned about the direction of how we regulate the growing of cannabis, which is not covered in Bill C-45, and why we are moving in the direction of additional water use and intensive energy use for a product that we do not think is safe but is not more dangerous than tobacco. Tobacco is grown outside, so why can cannabis not be grown outside?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have direct experience with much gardening at all, certainly not in this case. However, on the issue of growing indoors versus outdoors, I would have significant concerns about the growing of marijuana in an environment where it could not be secured from relatively easy access by minors, potentially by thieves or even children who are part of the same family.

Attention needs to be paid to this aspect of home grow. Frankly, I think it would have been more responsible for the government to not allow—well, I do not support the bill in general, but it would have been more responsible for it to not allow home grow, recognizing the risk that even with growing it indoors, the chances of children living in that house or other people being able to access it who should not be accessing it increases exponentially. That is particularly true for growing it outdoors.

I take the member's points about the impact on the environment, but maybe that is a reason not to grow marijuana at all.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would describe the thesis of my speech as helpful suggestions for committee stage. On the surface, there are quite a few positive things in this piece of legislation, and something I think all of us in the House can agree on is that it is a positive thing to reduce tobacco product usage. I am sure some lobbyists listening to this might not agree, but I think that is something we probably all agree on here. The question then is how we do that. Would the legislative framework we are looking to introduce drive to that end goal? Would it make Canada healthier? What are some of the opportunity costs? What are the costs associated with implementing this legislation? How do we make sure that at committee stage some of these issues are addressed?

For anyone watching, this bill was introduced in the other place and has gone through the reading stages there. It is an act to amend the Tobacco Act and the Non-smokers’ Health Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts. It was introduced in the other place on November 22, 2016. The bill proposes amendments that would implement a legislative framework under the Tobacco Act for vaping products. To clarify, a vaping product is defined in subclause 3(3) of this bill as:

(a) a device that produces emissions in the form of an aerosol and is intended to be brought to the mouth for inhalation of the aerosol;

(b) a device that is designated to be a vaping product by the regulations;

(c) a part that may be used with those devices; and

(d) a substance or mixture of substances, whether or not it contains nicotine, that is intended for use with those devices to produce emissions.

It does not include devices and substances or mixtures of substances that are excluded by the regulations, tobacco products or their accessories.

This has come up in debate already. As I understand it, and I would be happy to hear some clarification, this bill does not actually cover something that we would refer to as heat-not-burn cigarettes. When I studied this legislation, I will be honest that I had no clue about the differences between these products, but they are different and are being marketed separately now. It feels like one of those whack-a-mole situations where we have introduced this legislation to put regulations on vaping products, but we are now lagging behind on this other form of tobacco.

Since I have spent some time defining what the bill covers, my understanding is that the bill does not include heat-not-burn cigarettes. An article in The Globe and Mail in August 2017, stated:

One of the world's largest tobacco companies is rolling out a smokeless cigarette in Canada that it contends is less harmful than conventional combustible products, but some critics call the device merely a ploy to maintain – or even increase – market share in the face of dwindling smoking rates.

Philip Morris International has developed a heat-not-burn product called IQOS, or I-Quit-Ordinary-Smoking,—

They have tried to brand it as a smoking cessation product:

—that the tobacco giant says retains a high level of nicotine while reducing carcinogenic components found in the smoke of regular cigarettes.

As I understand it, this product heats the tobacco stick or cigarette up to a point where the substance can be inhaled, but is not actually combusting the product. Therefore, by the definition of the producer, not as many carcinogenic products are being inhaled. Under the theme of helpful suggestions for committee, my understanding is that the proposed regulations in the current bill do not cover this product, but we probably need some regulatory congruency just so there is some certainty both in the marketplace and for consumers and the health care system on what the government's intent is with this other product.

As far as I can tell, this product is being quasi-marketed as a smoking cessation product, but there has not been a lot of arm's-length research to show that it actually does that. The research that I have read on vaping products, which are also marketed as smoking cessation products, is that they actually prolong the period to cessation because people maintain their addiction to the nicotine.

As this bill heads to committee, I think that those particular claims and whether they are adequately addressed within this regulatory framework are important to address. If we do not have the quantitative data to look at that, then it is incumbent upon the government to initiate some studies to that effect. I did find as a legislator there was a bit of a gap in information on those claims. Certainly, the producers of these products have done research. As a legislator, I would like to see some arm's-length research done prior to making any sort of conclusions on that particular issue.

To continue on with the debate around the IQOS product, or this slightly less smoky cigarette, I want to read one of the complaints about it because I do not think the health minister has commented on this yet. It states:

David Hammond, an expert in tobacco policy at the University of Waterloo, said PMI and other tobacco companies have been making claims about minimizing health risks for decades, going back to the 1950s when filtered cigarettes were introduced.

“If they think combustible cigarettes are killing people and they would rather not sell them, then I would ask them why they continue to sell them?” he said.

Still, Hammond agreed that any nicotine product that doesn't involve smoke inhalation “is almost certainly going to be less harmful than regular smoked cigarettes. That includes e-cigarettes and it probably includes these products.”

I am reading that statement into the record because of the number of times “probably” and “maybe” are used. I think there are a lot of claims that are being inserted into the rationale for proceeding with this regulation. However, we just do not have a lot of quantitative data on it. Again, I am not trying to use that as a knock on the bill itself, but more that this is something which as parliamentarians we should be trying to get more information on at committee.

My colleague from Cariboo—Prince George, who is a fantastic colleague, brought an article to my attention that talked about the context as to why this legislation is important. An article was released a couple of days ago about a situation that occurred in Delta, British Columbia. A baseball player died under some circumstances and his mother has been calling for stronger vaping regulations after his death. This is the Kyle Losse case. His stepmother Niki Losse took Kyle to the hospital and then he passed away. She found an e-vape product where he had collapsed. A subsequent blood test determined that Kyle had nicotine in his system, and she believes there was some sort of an associated risk here.

The Kyle Losse case underscores the fact that there has not been a lot of research on the health effects of vaping tobacco. There are a lot of claims out there. While it might be true that the health impact of vaping products may be less harmful than traditional tobacco products, we do not understand what unique health challenges they may present.

As this legislation progresses, it is important for the government to look at a research framework around this issue, so that as we review the efficacy of this framework, assuming that it goes into force, we can measure those outcomes against quantifiable research. I must emphasize the point that when I was preparing for this bill, there was no consistent body of research that one could point to from credible, peer-reviewed sources that really hit a lot of these claims home. That is something we should look at.

A lot has been made about the plain packaging. I would like to take some time to talk about that as well and make a similar point.

The parliamentary secretary, in his introductory speech on this bill, talked about how Canada was lagging behind. In the past we had always been a world leader in legislation that aimed to reduce tobacco usage. He said that Canada had ceded the mantle of world leader in tobacco control to other countries such as Australia and the United Kingdom, that they had been quicker to adapt tobacco control efforts to address the always changing stories tobacco companies used to recruit new smokers, and that it was the government's intention to once again make Canada a world leader in tobacco control. The he went on to talk about the plain packaging component.

Australia has put in place plain packaging. On the surface, this is probably worth exploring, but there are associated consequences with it that we do not have a lot of research on, including the potential correlation between the introduction of plain packaging and an increase in contraband tobacco, as has been discussed at length in the House.

As always, when we as legislators use data from other jurisdictions, I sometimes feel we do ourselves a disservice, and I will get to that in a minute because there is not a lot of quantifiable data on that link one way or the other from other jurisdictions. Canada is in a fundamentally different context than a country like France. We are more geographically diverse, we have different problems with contraband, and we also have a higher rate of contraband being a problem.

At committee stage, it is worth it to perhaps bring in more experts who could speak to the problem of contraband and how the legislation with plain packaging could impact that and then amend the regulatory framework in such a way that perhaps the component could be addressed.

When I read the debate, one of my NDP colleagues asked the parliamentary secretary about this issue and the response was that the Liberals had a strategy to deal with it, which is administered by the RCMP and other agencies. I think that strategy actually turns out in March of this year. I have a concern that if this legislation comes into force and we have not adequately thought about the specific measures we need to implement within combatting a contraband framework unique to Canada, while layering on the additional pressure that the plain packaging regulations in this might have, we will do Canadians a disserve.

To emphasize the point of how much contraband is an issue in Canada, an article was posted by CBC in November 2017, which says “Contraband tobacco 'out of control' in Ontario, convenience store lobby says”. It says:

More cigarettes smoked in Ontario this year are contraband than in the last four years, a study released Wednesday by a group of convenience store owners in the province suggests. The study found especially large percentages of contraband cigarettes in northern Ontario. In the cities near Hamilton, the largest increase by far was in Brantford, where contraband cigarettes accounted for half of the cigarettes smoked, up from 36 per cent last year. In Hamilton, 31 per cent of cigarettes smoked were contraband, up from 25 per cent a year earlier. Across southwestern Ontario, contraband cigarettes rose to 33.9 per cent from 26 per cent in 2016 — the highest proportional increase in the four regions of the province studied.

The Ontario Convenience Store Association commissions the study every year, where researchers sweep a sample of about 100 butts from high-traffic locations like schools, hospitals, malls and casino in 23 cities. Then the group analyses whether the cigarette was contraband or was legally sold.

The group's president...told CBC News he acknowledges the survey isn't scientific, but said it does get at the trend without relying on consumers, stores or distributors to be honest about whether their smokes are legal.

The reason I wanted to put that on the record is that there is another theme there. He acknowledges that the study is not scientific. We hear on the news that there is an increase in contraband, but we do not really understand how widespread the problem is. This is one sample in one region of the country. It is important to note that Canada has regional differences in tobacco usage. Without having that framework, how can we possibly look at strategies to prevent the distribution of contraband products?

Again, this is a helpful suggestion as the bill goes to committee. It is incumbent upon the government to look at, as the framework for combatting contraband is potentially renewed or whatnot in March, the research on how much contraband is a problem should come to bear.

Perhaps the government could partner on with companies that are doing behavioural research on tobacco consumption using artificial intelligence technology. A lot of new companies are working in this space. Perhaps we could start looking at a better model on how we monitor this.

We love to regulate in this place. It is kind of our first reaction to any sort of policy problem. However, my concern with the implementation of the proposed legislation is that without the associated metrics or a system to measure the efficacy of the legislation, we really cannot tell our constituents whether what we have put in place here is working.

In looking at the proposed legislation, the government has not put a lot of information out to parliamentarians about the cost of implementing the framework. I do not even understand how the government would implement this framework. Therefore, I would like to see my colleagues who will study the bill at the health committee really question departmental officials about how they plan to implement it, over what time period, and what metrics the government will be using. What are the end goals? Is the government stating that the legislation will see x percentage of reduction of tobacco usage over a period of time? If so, how will the government measure that and what sort of quantitative analysis will it put in place to do that?

Again, my review of this shows that there is not a lot of framework out there or research being done on this. My concern, and I am showing my Conservative colours on this, is that we should not be moving directly to regulation without having that framework in place. We should be able to communicate to our constituents, when we put in place regulation, how much it will cost to implement and how we will measure it against stated end goals, which is kind of lacking in the bill.

On the surface, I do not oppose plain packaging. If the data is there to show that it reduces tobacco usage, then it we should probably explore this. However, my question is where is that data right now. The closest thing I could find in another jurisdiction was in France where it has had plain packaging regulations. Official data published on January 29 by the French agency shows that plain packaging has not had an impact on smoking rates. Indeed, according to l'Observatoire français des drogues et des toxicomanies, in the course of 2017, sales of cigarettes remained stable with a slight decrease of a 0.7% in volume after a 1.3% increase in sales during the first half of the year. This study was conducted between August 4, 2017 to January 29, 2018, so this is fresh data.

This failure was acknowledged by the French health minister, Agnès Buzyn, who stated, “We know that plain packaging does not lead smokers to stop smoking.” She concluded that “unfortunately in 2016, the official sales of cigarettes have increased in France. Plain packaging did not contribute to the decrease of official tobacco sales.”

The French study is worth examining at the committee stage. Also, when we do that, we should look at the regional context. What sort of factors does France have that might be different from Canada with respect to tobacco usage and contraband increases?

Whenever we seek to put regulations in place, we should be able to clearly define what we hope to see as the measurable policy outcome, which I am not sure has been stated here; how much it is going to cost; and then how we would measure success.

We need more robust research, and I would like to see the government put that in place prior to implementation of this framework.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, a couple of thoughts come to mind. First is that the whole idea of plain and standard packaging is not new. Other countries in the world have done this. My colleague made reference to France. Australia has kind of led the way.

Within the last couple of years, an enormous amount of consultation has been done by this government. Legislation has been brought in and some goals have been established with respect to reducing smoking. Obviously, the government is very much concerned and wants to get fewer Canadians, young Canadians picking up the habit of smoking. Most of the different stakeholders, and I suspect there would be a consensus from most, believe that moving toward that standardized packaging is good. The member seemed to conclude that. It appears she is not in opposition to this.

She raised concerns with respect to contraband cigarettes. I see them as two different issues. I do not see the direct correlation, and one of her colleagues made reference to that. Maybe that is one of the issues we could advance to the standing committee where no doubt the committee would have more time to deal with it.

My question is specifically on standardized packaging. Do the Conservatives believe we should be moving forward with this? The New Democrats have been very clear. They support it and they want to see it move forward.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in his comments, my colleague reinforced the point I made in my speech. He said that some people believed this would work and that other jurisdictions had introduced this. However, is it going to work?

The government needs to state very clearly how much it predicts the plain packaging initiative will reduce demand, how much the cost of implementation of this framework will be, how it will deal with the issue of a potential increase in contraband, which we need to study as well. It also needs to talk about some of the findings that have come out, especially the report that has been published in France. The French health minister has said that plain packaging does not lead smokers to stop smoking.

Again, I would go back to the thesis of my speech, which is helpful questions for committee. These are questions that as legislators and regulators we should answer prior to introducing a regulatory framework so we can go back to our constituents and say, if as the Liberals claim, this will reduce the incidence of tobacco usage, this is how much the government expects it to be reduced by, this is the data it relies on, and this is the framework it will use to reduce contraband consumption.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the health critic for the NDP, it was incumbent upon me to do extensive research on the bill. I want to assure the member that there is credible peer reviewed evidence on this subject.

Fourteen separate studies on the impact of plain packaging in its first year in Australia were published in a special supplement to the BMJ. That research found that after the laws were implemented “there was a "statistically significant increase" in the number of people thinking about and making attempts to quit smoking.” Other key findings included that plain packaging reduced the appeal of packs, particularly with adolescents and young adults, the legislation had not increased the consumption of illicit cigarettes, and plain packaging had encouraged smokers to think about and attempt to quit.

My hon. colleague kept referring to France as some sort of evidence that plain packaging had no measurable effects on smoking rates. That legislation was only implemented in France in 2016, so it has had maybe a year and a half to evaluate it. That is not enough time for the French government to truly understand the implications of its legislation.

Does the member agree, given the experience of Australia, which is the longest period of time we have since 2012 with legislation, that we should proceed with this legislation confident in the fact that it will definitely have an impact on smoking rates, particularly among young people, even if we cannot measure the exact amount?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the point of the legislation is to say that we would like to reduce it to this amount and that this is how this regulation is going to do that. That is kind of what we do here. If we are going to spend taxpayer dollars on implementing a regulatory framework, where there will be staff required and all sorts of different things to do this, it is kind of ridiculous if we cannot exactly measure it. Why would we do something if we cannot measure it?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague wanting to have a good discussion based on data and not simply just, as she said, a knee-jerk reaction to regulate and ask questions later. We need to have a more significant discussion about contraband tobacco and its influence in this country. I have heard from industry that it is aware of more contraband tobacco factories in this country than legal ones.

The question is not only who, but whether our policy response in terms of enforcement is woefully inadequate and why that is. The government is asking Canadians to trust it, asking us as their representatives to trust, that plain packaging will make it better. However, there are different factors here than in France or Australia. Contraband tobacco is one of them. Taxes and the cost of them is another. Any time one has a higher cost, it is going to push more to the illegal market.

Does the member think there needs to be a better case made by the authorities as to why we have this problem, and whether we are taking into consideration a problem that already exists and may actually be magnified by this legislation?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with many of the points my colleague has made. Again, this is why part of the discussion at committee needs to be around that whole measurement framework. My colleague from the NDP made some good points as well that there are bodies of research. I read one study showing there might be a correlation between how people perceive the taste of nicotine products in plain packaging versus regular packaging.

The point I am trying to make is that we just do not have a lot of data on that in the Canadian context. How are we going to do that once this comes into force? I know the Liberals have a majority government and this is going to pass, but as the opposition party, I would hope the government takes suggestions in terms of the need to put in place a framework to measure whether this works or not. I am concerned that without those side pieces of research, of the enforcement of contraband products, it might not. I might be wrong, but that is what the committee study is for. I hope the government really has a hard think about that, so that we are not coming back here in five years saying that it did not work.

I am not sure if the legislation has a parliamentary review component built into it. This is perhaps something that the committee could include if it does not right now.

I also wanted to thank my colleague from Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola for his previous intervention before I spoke around the CRA's enforcement procedures for contraband cigarettes. With the introduction of this potential regulation, it is a timely discussion to have. We should perhaps be putting more enforcement around that. That would also perhaps lead to a reduction of tobacco usage in Canada.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to the bill. Before I get started, I want inform the House that I will be sharing my time with the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

Today, I would like to talk about the bill from three perspectives. I want to talk about the present rate of smoking, whether plain packaging will work, and the relationship between tobacco use and marijuana use.

I am going to start with the present rate. I have some good news. Smoking has been on a downward trend for about 50 years. That is the case. Over the last 10 years, we have seen the usage rate drop about 10%. I expect we will continue to see this as smoking becomes less and less culturally acceptable.

Why are we discussing this here? One of the reasons I got into politics is that I often think the government takes on things that it has no business taking on. This is another area where we have to look at whether the government even has a responsibility to worry about whether Canadians are smoking.

In Canada, we have public health care. It is not necessarily administered by the federal government, but a big part of our budget does end up getting transferred to the provinces. I know in my own province, 50% of Alberta's spending is spent on health care. Therefore, because of all the money we collectively spend on health care, we then collectively get to infringe upon the freedoms of others and say, “No, sorry, you cannot do that.”

Fortunately, we do not throw people in jail for smoking, but we do exert a lot of social pressure and some legal pressure to ensure that people are not smoking. In my own life, I do find that smoking is a filthy habit. I have several people close to me who smoke. I give it no credence whatsoever. I have no problem publicly shaming them for smoking, and even people I do not know very well. I must say it is part of Canadian culture. If somebody is overweight, people definitely do not say anything about it. However, if somebody smokes, it seems to be fair game to tell them that it is a filthy habit that they should give up. That is entirely the case.

That social pressure, that legal pressure, and the fact that we have public health care, all three of these things seem to be working to reduce the rate of smoking in this country.

As I said earlier, in the 1960s, and I was not around in the 1960s but I have read a few things and my notes tell me, about 50% of Canadians smoked. Today, I am told it is about 13% of Canadians who smoke. I would say that whatever we are doing seems to be working.

Then we come to the plain packaging that is being introduced by the current bill. Will plain packaging work? If we listen to the NDP members, they say it will definitely work. What does working look like? What will success look like? If we are seeing a downward trend in the percentage of the population that is smoking, then after we introduce plain packaging we would expect to see a significant, sudden decrease. We would expect to see this trend line going in one direction, and then with the introduction of plain packaging we would expect to see a blip, hopefully in the downward trend. That has yet to be seen, and I do not think that we are going to see that.

The other thing about plain packaging that I would like to point out is that from the examples of the plain packaging that I have seen, I am pretty sure that I could make a plain package on my home printer. That is going to be a gift to the contraband community. In the province that I come from, the province of Alberta, contraband is not as big of a deal because there is not a lot of tobacco being grown in Alberta. The contraband tobacco that does come to Alberta comes from far away.

The contraband that I have heard of in Alberta is typically packaged in the plain packaging. It is typically in a package that has no identifying marks on it whatsoever. Unlike in other jurisdictions where contraband is often seen in a plastic bag, in Alberta it seems to come in plain packaging. Therefore, plain packaging will be a gift in that now if we see someone with plain packaging we know immediately it is contraband, whereas if everybody has plain packaging we will not know what is contraband.

This overlaps with the marijuana debate that we are having here, and I am not sure who I got this from but someone sent this to my office and put “Tobacco” and “Marijuana” on either side of it. What is interesting is that the person points out that the plain packaging or even the shape and size of tobacco, the appearance of cigarettes, these kinds of things, are all highly regulated by the government, yet when it comes to marijuana there does not seem to be any interest in regulating what, how, or why this product is going to be consumed. Granted, I know that marijuana is consumed in more ways than just smoking, but it is interesting that in this Parliament we are debating the legalization of marijuana and putting in higher restrictions on cigarettes.

One of the other interesting things, as we are debating this and the government seems to be supportive of this particular bill, is that the government is bringing in plain packaging for cigarettes yet does not have any kind of advertising or packaging rules around marijuana. This particular picture shows me some of the examples of the marijuana packaging, which looks like candy packaging, and then it shows a picture of cigarettes. I do not know if it is the same in every province. In Alberta, flavoured tobacco is illegal, but I know that the tobacco packages are the most disgusting things one has ever seen, and 75% of the package is covered with a health warning label. The example here is a picture of someone's mouth with their teeth rotting away. I think that would be more effective than plain packaging. Then there is an example of the marijuana packaging, which has no health warnings on it and does not seem to have any indication that this might be affecting people's health.

Interestingly, marijuana may have even more detrimental effects to one's health than tobacco. Tobacco affects one's physical health. Marijuana may also affect one's mental health. However, the government has been silent on the warnings that are going to be on the packaging. It says that there will be some level of branding allowed.

We have seen that members of the Trailer Park Boys and the Tragically Hip have all signed on as ambassadors for marijuana branding, but the Marlboro Man has long been outlawed in this country. It is interesting, for the sake of consistency, that we would be working on that.

Another so-called sin tax area that we deal with is alcohol. Again, there are fairly strict guidelines as to the advertising of it, yet there does not seem to be anything when it comes to marijuana. Therefore, it seems that we are very much moving quickly in one direction with one particular item and totally in another direction with another item. This strikes me as odd, particularly given that I like to think that the free market has a lot of benefits. The free market gives us everything that we need. I would say that we need to allow the free market to flourish, but I again go back to the fact that we have public health care in this country so we have the right to impose upon each other these health restrictions.

I look forward to seeing what happens to the bill at committee. I understand my party will be supporting it being sent to committee. I certainly hope that the folks on that committee take into consideration the present rate and the declining rate, that they look at the effects that plain packaging will have on the contraband world, and that they will consider the current government's direction with its marijuana legislation and in some way try to keep it consistent with other products in this country.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting here thinking about this debate and recognizing that I owe cigarettes big thanks for my activism through life. When my dear grandfather was taken from us with lung cancer from smoking cigarettes when I was five years old, I became so rampant in my objection to smoking that I stole cigarette packages out of my mother's friends' purses, blew out matches, and did all manner of things to stop people from smoking. I am grateful that the statistics quoted by our colleague show that Canadians are smoking less, and clearly not due to my activism.

I want to pursue what we might know about how Health Canada will pursue the problem of smaller amounts of nicotine delivered by a different system. We do need this legislation. We need to regulate, but do we know enough about the downstream risks of vaping? I wonder if he could comment on that, either on behalf of the Conservative Party or for himself as a member of Parliament.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I found very interesting in my own research on vaping and its ability to get people to quit smoking is the fact that we really do not know at this point what the downstream effects of vaping are. Anecdotally, vaping seems to help people quit smoking. That is a big positive.

I will go back to the beginning of my speech, where I talked about the government's involvement in people's lives. I always ask, does the government really have anything to do here? I would put that forward as well. Some people come down on it and say that if we do not know what is going to happen, we should definitely regulate it. We know it helps people to reduce smoking. We do not know its long-term health effects. Given the fact that we have a public health care system, we seem to think that we should regulate it.

Let us pull back for a moment and see what comes in. If we can work hard to get people to quit smoking by the use of vaping, let us allow that to happen. Let us get out of the way until we know what the real results are.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the debate on the topic throughout today, particularly my colleague's comments, and there appears to be a conflict between Bill C-45, which is the cannabis bill, and Bill S-5.

Governments, provincial and federal, as well as organizations have spent a lot of money trying to stop people from smoking. We get into vaping, contraband, and a lot of these topics. All of these things are out of fear for our health, whether we are talking about illegal contraband, packaging, or health, when people go to a doctor or have surgery and have to sign something saying whether they smoke and when they stopped smoking.

In Bill C-45, it is almost like we are encouraging people by legalizing cannabis. The provincial governments will be selling different types of products or sending it out to have other people do it. Is there a major contradiction in the philosophy of these two bills?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that was precisely what I was trying to do, lay it out that Bill C-45 and Bill S-5 seem to be going in two opposite directions. I am asking the government for some consistency on this.

When it comes to a good cigar, however, there is something to be said about adding life to years rather than years to life.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from across the way said very briefly that vaping helps people get away from smoking addiction. There is no doubt that it has a very positive impact for many smokers. Would he acknowledge that, particularly for young people who are being enticed to get involved in vaping, there is a very high risk that vaping at an earlier age could ultimately lead to more young people eventually quitting vaping and picking up cigarette smoking, who would not have done so if vaping was not there?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is where we get into it. Vaping has not been around that long. I was about 22 years old when vaping became a thing. The first time I saw vaping, it was some 12-year-olds who were giggling like crazy. They had bought electronic cigarettes at the corner store, and they thought it was hilarious that they could buy these things but they could not buy those other things.

I will grant the member that it is a possibility, for sure, but at this point we do not know. I do not think that it is going to be a great issue. I would rather kids smoked vapour than an actual cigarette. Again, the government is searching for a problem.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to add my comments to the debate on Bill S-5, an act to amend the Tobacco Act and the Non-smokers’ Health Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts. After reading that very long title, people might be wishing to go back to the days of the Conservative government, when we had very catchy phrases for our particular pieces of legislation.

There are three components I would like to focus my comments on. One is vaping; the second is the intended plain packaging; and the third is the issue of flavours. If there is a little extra time, I might have some general comments on public health and the approach it is taking.

In May 2015, there was a unanimous report from the health committee. I was on the committee at that time. We worked hard, and we said that we needed a regulatory framework on vaping. We presented 14 recommendations to the government in May of that year, looking forward to the government's response. The report was unanimous and said that we needed a regulatory framework. As we know, there was an election a short time after that, and the government of the day did not have the opportunity to respond and move forward.

I find it interesting that this was in the mandate letter of the minister when the Liberals were first elected way back in the fall of 2015, a few short months after this unanimous report was presented with recommendations, and it has taken almost three years to get this particular piece of legislation to the stage it is at now. It speaks to how long it actually takes the government,when it sets something as a priority in the mandate letters, with a lot of the background work already done and a consensus within the House, to get what it says is a priority to the table. There are recent articles showing how ineffective the government has been in passing legislation, especially on something that has pretty solid support, such as the framework on vaping.

The government can never leave things simple, and it had to add a number of other issues to this piece of legislation, which I will talk about a little later. With regard to vaping, it is absolutely appropriate that there be some structure around it. Things like prohibiting the sale to minors, prohibiting promotion of vaping products that appeal to youth, and submitting information to Health Canada are all sensible pieces of moving this forward.

I know that some of my colleagues have mentioned this, but it is important to note. The member for Cariboo—Prince George, as many know, is in hospital right now, and all of us in the House wish him a very speedy recovery. It speaks to his dedication and passion for what goes on in Parliament that he has been watching the debate and sending messages to all of us as we are coming up for our opportunity to speak, asking whether we have seen a certain article or whether we are aware of this or that. I want to say to the member for Cariboo—Prince George that we wish him well. He should make sure he gets enough rest because he said he was going to look for a better balance.

I will bring to the attention of members the article he sent. It is very recent, from January of this year, and it is entitled “Teen baseball player’s stepmom calls for stronger vaping regulations after his death”. He was 14 years old. He was found collapsed in the bathroom with some vaping products beside him. Of course, his death cannot be directly attributed to them. The story is about his going to the hospital and how he died shortly thereafter.

However, it is enough to raise a caution. It is enough to say it was a young man who was exposed to a product, so there certainly are some things that we need to perhaps look at and watch from there, which really speaks to the fact that we might have a regulatory framework that is in place to provide some protection, but there is an actual need to continue the research.

I do not think anyone has talked to this particular issue. Right now it is a bit of a no man's land in terms of people selling products that are illegal, but here is a recent study that talks about the importance of research and knowing what is in the products that people are vaping. It links chemicals in flavoured e-cigarettes to a respiratory disease that is called popcorn lung. Right now people need to be very cautious because there are no controls in place in terms of what they are actually inhaling.

This says:

A chemical found in the vast majority of flavoured e-cigarettes tested by researchers in a new study has been linked to severe respiratory disease. The study out of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, released Tuesday, tested 51 types of flavoured e-cigarettes and refill liquids, known as e-juice.

It was actually a couple of years ago.

“ln our study we focused on flavours we feel are appealing to children and younger consumers,” the study's lead author Joseph Allen, assistant professor of exposure assessment science, said. “Flavours like Waikiki watermelon, alien blood, cupcake and cotton candy.”

The researchers said the flavouring chemical called diacetyl was found in more than 75% of the products tested.

This goes back to popcorn factories where people working there were getting a debilitating respiratory disease, bronchiolitis obliterans, and it is known as the popcorn lung. It is very serious and often can require a lung transplant—an irreversible lung disease.

What is concerning about that is smoking damages the lungs over a long period of time, but the effects of diacetyl and the creation of popcorn lung is much more rapid and much more concerning. It can be ingested, but when it is inhaled into the lungs, it is certainly a problem. We know it is in e-cigarettes. In the U.S. there are more than 7,000 flavours on the market, many of them containing this. Health Canada has not yet regulated e-cigarettes, so that is a word of caution for people who are using the product.

This leads me to the flavours issue. One of the things that our government committed to in the last Parliament was to ban the flavours that were appealing to youth. I know there were chocolate, strawberry, and banana flavours that were on the market and very appealing to youth.

At that time we had a pretty significant discussion and debate about menthol. There was a suggestion that we should also ban menthol, and the decision at that time was that menthol had been in cigarettes for many years; it is a product that is legal in Canada; it is a product whose risks adults who choose to smoke are aware of. They have chosen and used menthol cigarettes for years, and we thought it was unduly unfair for the government of the day to ban menthol.

I notice in this legislation that the new government has decided to go ahead with that. Perhaps members need to hear from people, especially adults, who had a lot to say about that issue, when a different decision was made in the past. I certainly agree with the issue around the strawberry, chocolate, and banana tobacco, but menthol was something we did consider.

There is not a lot of time, and the plain packaging is the final area that I want to note. We hear that it might be very helpful. We hear that it has not made a difference.

Coming from British Columbia, I did not realize how much of an issue contraband tobacco was until I came to this House and heard from my colleagues from Ontario. It was a pretty consistent conversation we had. The other thing is that, for the first time in my life, I saw these bags of contraband tobacco. Of course the Canadian government policies significantly impacted the contraband tobacco industry. There needs to be a very thoughtful conversation in committee on that particular issue.

In general, we support this going to committee. We think there are a few areas that perhaps need some additional consideration.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the area about which I would like to ask a question for the hon. member is with regard to youth. I have worked with youth for 20 years, and I have seen youth pick up smoking for various reasons. Sometimes it is because of stress, and stress has led to smoking. There are all kinds of reasons that youth actually start smoking. However, I would like clarification from the member on this idea of packaging, which was the last topic she spoke on. We know thousands of dollars are spent on how we market and package products so they gain the attention of young people. There is no doubt in my mind that attractive or glitzy packaging does that.

Would she not admit there is no question that the packaging has an impact on the purchasing of these products, and commend the government for moving forward in this regard?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member raises a very good point. First of all, I totally disagree that we currently have glitzy, attractive packaging. Any package I have looked at in the last number of years has been quite appalling in terms of the actual images on it. It is also important to point out that, in most provinces, cigarette packages have to be put behind walls where children cannot see them, and the adults have to ask to have the cupboards opened to get their package of choice. What we are talking about is packaging that is not very clear. I mean, it is not sitting there on open shelves as it used to be. There are unattractive images on them.

Offsetting that, what is it going to do in terms of the contraband industry? That is a legitimate question to ask. We have done a lot around packaging and hiding the product, but with what impact? I hope it would be a concern for the Liberals also to see a significant rise in terms of contraband and cheaper products for children.

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

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to plain packaging, in my riding, on reserve, there are little white cigarettes in plastic bags. I do not think we can get any plainer than that, and it does not seem to be having any impact on the people who want to smoke.

I am interested to ask the question about public education. I remember, when I was growing up, there was a huge public education campaign with the pictures of the bad lungs and the good lungs, which was very effective in preventing young people from starting smoking. Does she think this should be part of the bill as well?