Debates of April 27th, 2018

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Tobacco Act and the Non-smokers’ Health Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

An Act to amend the Tobacco Act and the Non-smokers’ Health Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, to conclude my speech I will recap what I said before question period.

In a bill like Bill S-5, it is important to strike a balance between protecting non-smokers and helping smokers to quit smoking. It is important to develop prevention tools and invest in preventing people from smoking in the first place. If a person starts smoking, then one day they will want to quit, and we know how hard that can be. We have to invest in prevention to ensure that we have everything we need to make people aware of the risks of using tobacco.

I also mentioned the importance of targeting groups that are more likely to smoke. Again, 40% of first nations people smoke, as do 37% of people who are divorced or separated. Young people are also a target group. Often people start smoking when they are teenagers. I would add that troubled youth are particularly targeted. What is more, people with mental health issues, whether it be a minor depression or a more serious problem, represent 20% of the Canadian public who will be affected at some point, and some statistics point to an even higher rate.

Therefore, it is important to focus on these groups and to help the organizations that support these people in particular. We should help organizations such as Satellite, in Saint-Hyacinthe, and Horizon Soleil, in Acton Vale, which work on prevention with elementary school children, their parents, and teachers so that they know how to handle a situation where they might start consuming. Earlier, I spoke about Maison l'Alcôve, a well-regarded organization that does excellent work when it comes to treating all addictions. It treats its clients in the enchanting surroundings of an old monastery, which is ideal for treating addictions.

I am also thinking of several organizations that are affected. I was the long-time director of a community housing organization, Auberge du coeur Le Baluchon. We provided housing for troubled youth, and most of them were users and also smokers. They were only allowed to smoke outside the house, and so the balcony became their meeting place. This organization's mission is not to help prevent smoking, but that is still a concern.

I am also thinking of all the mental health organizations. I worked for the Contact Richelieu-Yamaska crisis centre, where most of the people with mental health issues were also smokers. Then there is MADH, Maison alternative de développement humain, and Centre psychosocial Richelieu-Yamaska, which do the same kind of work.

As the federal government we are responsible for providing the funding to promote healthy living to Canadians. Whether we are talking about nutrition or physical exercise, a healthy lifestyle can help prevent people from smoking, which is the purpose of Bill S-5.

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

Madam Speaker, I am proud of our government's proactive role with respect to nicotine addiction and vaping. The member spent some time talking about prevention, which is extremely important. I wonder if the member could expand upon the role other levels of government can play with respect to prevention. Is there a role for the municipal and provincial levels to play? How does the member see that?

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

That is true in many areas. I got into federal politics because of the six years I worked as a city councillor. I have been a member of the NDP for 10 years. What brought me in was the NDP's core value of working together.

All levels of government must work together to combat smoking and vaping. The provincial and territorial governments have an important role to play in health. They must invest in prevention. Public health organizations in every province are important in the work to prevent smoking and the fight against tobacco. At the municipal level, rules must be enforced, such as those regarding places where smoking is permitted or prohibited. That is important. Every level of government must work together toward the goal of a society that is smoke free and a better place to live.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member's speeches are always well researched, well organized, and very well delivered.

Back in 1974, I lived in Winnipeg, and I wrote a letter to the Winnipeg Free Press requesting that cigarette smoking be banned in all bars and restaurants in Manitoba, and hopefully in Canada. We finally got there with cigarette smoking. Does the member believe that where currently cigarette smoking is banned, the smoking of electronic cigarettes or vaping should also be banned and that when it comes to the legalization of the recreational use of marijuana, it should also be banned in any areas where smoking is currently banned?

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

In my speech, I said that the NDP has been involved in the fight against smoking for a long time. My colleague backed that up by saying that we have been taking action on this issue for over 40 years.

If we want to promote healthy lifestyles, the same strict rules must be applied to the use of all these products.

As I said in my speech, vaping must not be seen as a safe alternative to smoking. We must therefore have the same strict rules in place for vaping or the use of any other such products.

The rules we have established for tobacco must be applied to the use of other products as well, whether it is vaping or marijuana. It is important that the government show leadership to set the tone for and support other levels of government in enforcing all these rules.

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

Madam Speaker, I think is it worthy of noting, as we see the industry growing, that there is always concern in terms of the impact it might have on young people. It is one of the reasons government needs to be involved.

Often we do not give enough credit to young people nowadays, in particular when we look at our high schools. I think of high schools in my own riding, such as Sisler, Maples, Children of the Earth, R.B. Russell, and St. John's. They are high schools that have fantastic youth education programs, such as on drinking and driving, and in the past, on smoking. One of the things we need to do is support youth in their initiatives to ensure that there is education among young people.

I wonder if my colleague would provide her thoughts on how important it is that our young people continue to play a role in healthy living.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I spent a couple of decades working closely with high schools in my region, so I know how important it is to support prevention programs in our schools. In my riding, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, an organization called Jeunes en santé is doing amazing work in youth health promotion. It is helping schools and organizations teach healthy life habits. Unfortunately, funding for organizations like Jeunes en santé tends to be precarious. We have to support organizations that work on the front lines.

My colleague mentioned stakeholders. Stakeholders played a major role in drafting Bill S-5, which will soon become law; they indicated what kind of amendments were needed. They were the ones who insisted that social media advertising targeting young people should be prohibited. The federal government must ensure that our laws protect people who are targeted and who are more likely to start using tobacco. We have to listen to front-line stakeholders. In my speech, I mentioned organizations such as the Coalition québécoise pour le contrôle du tabac, Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada, the Canadian Medical Association, and the Canadian Public Health Association. Every one of those organizations is prepared to show us the way and tell us what needs to be done.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague has done a little more research on this and so I would like to ask her the following question. Last week, a tobacco company representative whose name I shall not mention appeared before a parliamentary committee. Although we were discussing another matter, he decided to lecture us about plain packaging. He said it makes no difference because every pack of cigars or cigarettes is already out of sight in convenience stores and other points of sale.

How would the member respond to that argument? It seems somewhat naive to think that just because they are out of sight, school children do not talk about or see these packages that youth might find attractive. This argument put forward by representatives of the tobacco industry seems rather naive. It could even be argued that they are being willfully blind.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I think the tobacco companies will continue to react to what we want to do to curb their sales. I would answer that, yes, the packs are hidden; at least, they are when you buy them. After working with young people for nearly 20 years, I can say that once they purchase a pack, they have it on them. I do believe that plain packaging and packaging with prevention messages does send them a message. Then, on a daily basis or every time they have a pack in their hands, they see the message that the product it is harmful to their health. Plain packaging sends the message that what they have in their hands is not appealing and not good for them. I think plain packaging is crucial, which is why Bill S-5 talks about it. I think every tool we can use to help people quit smoking is crucial. We need to use all of these tools combined if we want to tackle smoking.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am always very happy to stand in the House to represent the people of my riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook. I describe the riding as a half-circle around the two big cities of Halifax and Dartmouth.

The riding has a very large population of veterans and military members. I am extremely proud to represent those individuals. Those veterans and military members make up 23% of the population, which is the highest in Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia has the highest number of veterans and military members per capita in the country. Members can well understand why I am very proud to represent those individuals.

There is also a very large number of seniors in the riding. When I visit the various seniors groups, the work they do is quite impressive. Not only do they do all kinds of great things when it comes to volunteering, but they also have all kinds of events and activities taking place daily in their communities to support seniors. That is important.

There are fishing communities, like Eastern Passage. There are urban and rural communities. There is a good mix in my riding. I always want to underline those key issues and concerns.

I am pleased to speak to Bill S-5, a very important bill that came through the Senate. The bill would amend the Tobacco Act and the Non-smokers’ Health Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

It is important to note that we have done some really good work on prevention when it comes to tobacco. In the last number of years, we have seen a decrease in the numbers of smokers in Canada, from 22% to 13%. That is because of the various strategies we have used, including the markings and packaging, which I will talk about as well. However, we need to go further.

When we start to talk about vaping products, I have to be honest I do not have a lot of experience in this area. I have asked myself questions on many occasions, when driving or walking down the street and I see people using these vaping products. I have asked myself if these products include nicotine or tobacco. Sometimes I smell an odour like when someone is smoking a pipe. This allowed me to a little research to learn more about this product.

This bill focuses on two major areas. The first is a new framework for unregulated products. As I have said, the product is out there, but there are no regulation on it. We need to put some regulations on that.

The other aspect of the bill that I want to speak to is the plain packaging, because that is crucial. I believe we are heading in the right direction. When I hear “plain packaging”, I think about branding. So many things in the country and in the world if branded and marketed the right way will influence people to purchase it or try it.

Branding is so important. I think about James Curleigh who spoke last week about Levi's and the main strategies used to brand a product and make people want to purchase and use that product. That is why plain packaging is crucial. We have to take away the influence branding has. That is extremely important.

I believe we are the 10th country looking at changing branding and moving to plain packaging.

When we say “plain packaging”, the colour is gone, which is good. It is not as attractive. Perhaps the shape has changed and that may stop people from purchasing and using the product. It is not as flashy, but we can still put the necessary warnings on the packaging to show the other products it may contain.

The consultation that took place on the bill allowed 58,000 Canadians to speak about packaging, how they felt about plain packaging, and if they believed this was what we should be doing. A large majority of people supported it. I am extremely happy about that. I just shared with the members what branding and marketing could do. Therefore, if we take that away, we reverse the table on it, and we then head in the right direction. However, the consultation was crucial.

The next step is to put a committee together to work on setting the rules and regulations. Once that is set, then we will go back out and consult again. It is important to ensure we are in partnership as we move forward on this important bill.

I will now touch on vaping products. Again, my experience is limited in this area, but vaping has been going on for eight or nine years. As members know, once a new product comes online and the industry gets involved, it will continue to find ways to make the product more attractive, different, and we will see all kinds of versions out there.

This is where we need to ensure we are regulating, and there are two areas we will look at to to this. The product could fall under the Food and Drugs Act, which would mean for therapeutic use only. If it does not meet the therapeutic criteria, it would automatically fall under the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act. Therefore, we have two areas where it could be regulated.

The objective here is to ensure that young people do not have access to this product. We will set the limit at 18 years. The other reason we want to act on this vaping product is that adults already use e-cigarettes. I agree that information is still unclear and we do not have all the scientific evidence, but some facts clearly show that this product is much less harmful than cigarettes themselves. As a result, this strategy to establish regulations may allow people who smoke to use this product, and then to eliminate this type of product entirely. This is another strategy.

The other thing we need to really look at is the whole issue of public health. We know how much money we spend on health. Provincial governments and the federal government spend a lot of money on health. There are waiting lists for our hospitals. This is very important. If this can help reduce the pressure on our public health system, we should consider it as another success.

Let us look at some of the key provisions in the bill. The first, as I mentioned, is the age limit of 18 years or older, which is an important factor.

The second one is what we call machine dispensers. We have come a long way with machine dispensers. I do not remember, but some people who are older than I am have told me that they existed for beer at one time, way back when. We could get beer the same way we get pop. That was available. Then we had them for cigarettes, of course, but we will make sure that they are not permitted for vaping products as well. We are starting in a much further area or space than we did with other products that were also very damaging.

Other provisions have to do with mailing and delivery if people order online. We know that ordering online is a big thing now. I know my kids order a lot of things online. It has become another method for people to purchase products without having to wander around in malls and spend their day in different shops.

That is one way of purchasing a product, but when products are sent and delivered, it will be crucial to ensure that the person who is receiving the product at the delivery point is older than 18 years. Therefore, when people are purchasing, they may have to have a Visa in their name. I do not have all of the specifics, but when it is being delivered to the homes of people, we must make sure that the person who is receiving the product is over 18 years old. That is crucial.

Another restriction is with respect to promotion. When it is being promoted, companies would be able to use some promotion strategies because the risk is less. However, there are some limitations in that area as well that are crucial.

Another area that is also important is prohibiting flavours that are attractive to kids, such as candy flavours, and I would like to share something that speaks to that. While we do not propose to limit the flavouring ingredients that may be added, we do not want to see those flavours identified or promoted as things that are appealing to kids. It will not be permissible to offer e-juice, cotton candy, popcorn, candy cane, or other flavours that appeal to kids.

As we can see, those are some of the strategies that the industry could come forward with that could cause great problems.

With respect to the second category and the Consumer Product Safety Act, of course vaping products that do not have therapeutic claims would fall under this category and all of the regulations that come with it for tobacco, etc. It will also require the industry, if there are any malfunctions, fires, or explosions associated with the product itself, to report them to Health Canada so that Health Canada can also recall the product.

As members can see, we are definitely heading in the right direction. This is much better than what was out there, because there were no controls. These regulations will help us.

In conclusion, together these measures will help protect the health and safety of all Canadians, including the people who choose to use vaping products.

Bill S-5 is a critical piece of our government's tobacco control agenda and will help address one of the most challenging and enduring public health problems. Bill S-5 strikes a balance between the harms of vapour products that may entice youth and others to develop a narcotic addiction and the potential public health benefits that could arise from reducing tobacco-related deaths and diseases.

I urge all colleagues in this House to support the bill at second reading and to move it quickly to committee.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I salute my colleague. I am always happy to hear him speak here in the House. He is doing amazing work, and I also have the privilege of working with him on the Association parlementaire de la Francophonie. He is doing a great job as president of the Canadian branch.

First of all, we strongly support this initiative. We are impressed by the philosophy and the process that led to a consensus. I would like to remind the House that under our government, the smoking rate among Canadians hit an all-time low of 16%.

Now I would like to ask my hon. colleague why the Liberals did not take inspiration from that process and from that work, which was done collaboratively and in Canadians' best interests, to produce a marijuana legalization bill that might have met with a better response.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague. The work he does on the APF is always impressive. His speeches are always interesting, and so are his questions, as we can see.

As my colleague mentioned, all the parties support this bill, which shows that we are on the right track. There is no question that the marijuana issue is another crucial file. I do not know the details yet, but it is highly likely that packaging will have to be consistent with the amendments that could be made to the legislation and that there will be strict rules to make packaging less appealing.

Let us hope that this will not encourage people to consume these products and will instead ensure that things are done properly.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I made this point earlier in the debate, but I would like to make it again because it is an important one. It is about the need for more independent research on e-cigarettes and vaping. We hear concerns. On the one side, some people think that this method of ingesting nicotine is safer or healthier. On the other side, the industry, especially, and retail outlets are saying that this is great way for people to kick the habit and that it is healthier.

I am wondering if the government will commit funding for independent research not tied to the industry that would help answer these important questions. Will the member commit to that?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's question is very important. As I said throughout my speech, I do not have a lot of experience in vapour products, but so far we know that they are less harmful. The question is how much less.

As we move forward, we will need to do much more research, but at least the regulation now would force the industry to clearly stipulate or show evidence of how this is going to fall under the Food and Drugs Act and how it is therapeutic. The research will need to continue, as with any other product. This product has been out there for eight or nine years without regulations. Now we are bringing in regulations, but the real question will be to what extent the risk is less. Is it 80% less, or 20% less? That may force other changes.

I agree with my colleague that we would need to invest in research in this area. Who is investing? Those are discussions that could be had through municipal governments, provincial governments, and the federal government.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, I want to advise the member and the member opposite that the government has dedicated $15 million in new funding to advance our knowledge on vaping products. We recognize the importance of making investments in research and identifying evidence upon which future decisions could be made around these products. In light of that investment, I would ask the member if he believes that our commitment to research is an appropriate one.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, there is no question that the investment is crucial. We must start somewhere, and we cannot make legislation without having financial support behind it.

Is it only our investment? Again, we are a government that is evidence-based, and that is crucial, so we will not only invest here but we will also possibly have discussions with provincial ministers of health about how we can do this research and share all of the best practices. As members know, we have 10 provinces and three territories, and we all have our strengths. There may be some provinces that have a lot to share in research and information.

Also, we are one of 10 countries that are moving strongly on the packaging. There are lots of good-news stories out there, and we will definitely work with all partners to make this better.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite mentioned a balance in the bill between the benefit and maybe the disadvantages, if we can put it that way. Would he be able to name three areas where the bill is most beneficial, and another three areas that he would like to see come into this bill, but which we regrettably do not see in the bill as it has been presented?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, as far as we know, packaging is going to be a big benefit. We have seen enormous change in the last 10 years in tobacco products because we have made some changes. When we go to plain packaging, people are not even going to know the product. It is not going to be able to be included, so the packaging is going to be powerful.

On the other side, if it stops people from smoking, then we have accomplished something. If it also stops young people from going to tobacco products or maybe not even to this product, it is also a success. There are a lot of good things, but we will have to continue to keep close watch on this product, because I know that the industry will come out with all kinds of variations that could cause us to make some changes based on those questions.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, considering the impact that tobacco has on the health of Canadians and the direct and indirect impacts on our society, would the member commit an additional $10 million in annual funding to combat tobacco and control tobacco, and would he commit to a licensing fee that Health Canada could impose on tobacco manufacturers to recoup those costs?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, I do not have that $10 million in my pocket, for sure. Again, those are very important questions. There is always more that can be done, and funding is an important part, but there is also how we do things. Maybe we can do things differently and be more effective as well.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill S-5, a bill first introduced in the Senate.

I am good friends with my friend from Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook. My wife's family lives in Fall River.

I did note, with interest, one of his responses, in which he said that the government was an evidence-based government and that it made decisions based on evidence. It appears that does not apply to the cannabis bill. Its rush to legalize, to keep the Prime Minister's very ill-conceived promise, has been contrary to evidence provided by the Canadian Medical Association, pediatricians, and so forth.

My speech will be based entirely on evidence. That needs to be brought here. I would also like to speak for a moment on how members of Parliament do their jobs, both in their constituency and in Ottawa. We do not talk about it enough. We know that Ottawa is full of government relations representatives, lobbyists, consultants, communications people, and we hear from people and groups on bills and legislation, which is important. We have to be informed. In many cases, we will call them to committee as well to give expert evidence and testimony.

I want to thank a constituent in my riding who brought very thoughtful and informed advocacy to me on Bill S-5. His name is Craig Farrow. He is a store owner in Bowmanville, and has been an owner of a store that sells vaping products. That is one of the elements contained in Bill S-5. Craig met with me and gave a very detailed presentation on how, when it came to smoking cessation, vaping products had helped up to a million Canadians leave smoking. In fact, in Craig's own experience of guiding and informing people in Bowmanville, he told me that in the five years his store had been open, he had helped 4,000 people transition from smoking to that e-cigarette or that vaping product.

Why this is important is that studies have shown, including a number of them in the United Kingdom, that vaping, and the nicotine included in the vaping fumes, is 95% less harmful than the tobacco delivery of nicotine. When we talk about the bill, we have to recognize there are some smoking cessation benefits to some of the products that will be regulated under Bill S-5. I want to thank Craig Farrow and store owners like him across the country who met with MPs, whether in Ottawa or in their ridings, and made the case that they should not be included.

The challenge is that they are included in Bill S-5. What I would have preferred to see was a separate bill on measures to prevent smoking, because I think we all support that. I would have preferred the marijuana and cannabis discussion to be a little more fulsome in Ottawa. Then, vaping, which is totally different, but worthy of regulation and attention, should have been treated differently. However, they are not.

I will speak about why I and my Conservative colleagues support Bill S-5. We are disappointed the government has tried to bring a lot of things in with it. It is a bill that amends the Tobacco Act, the Non-Smokers Health Act, and consequential amendments. It is kind of another example of a Liberal-promoted omnibus bill.

There are good elements in the bill that evidence has shown has led people to stop smoking. We have known for decades now that smoking can have numerous health impacts, including cancer. That is why governments, since 1980s, have tried to make measures to curb smoking, particularly with young people.

Bill S-5 has, as its centerpiece, the plain packaging issue, when it comes to tobacco sales, promotion, and advertising. Plain packaging measures have shown a marked increase, in jurisdictions that have adopted it, to prevent people from smoking.

We can look at the jurisdictions, which I looked did, of Australia, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand, our closest allies, I am well known for advocating working even closer with those allies under a program called CANZUK. Those countries have already implemented plain packaging and have had tremendous results.

The post-implementation review in Australia of its plain packaging legislation has estimated already, within the span of 18 months to two years, that almost 110,000 people have stopped smoking as a result that legislative measure.

In the United Kingdom, David Cameron's Conservative government brought forward similar legislation. It is estimated that this plain packaging move will take 300,000 people away from smoking, reducing the health impacts, the cost to society, and the toll on families.

In New Zealand, John Key's government also brought in similar legislation.

Therefore, with this part of Bill S-5, we are very in line with what our closest friends and allies have done. Unlike the Liberals who talk about evidence-based decision-making, I am trying to review the benefits that some of our friends have already had. We can review their evidence, especially the post-implementation review in Australia, to show this will have a benefit. Even though there are a lot of things in Bill S-5, plain packaging is the centrepiece.

I would also like to mention why the Conservatives support Bill S-5, despite its omnibus nature.

Since the government of Brian Mulroney in 1988, and the tobacco products act it brought in with Bill C-51 at the time, there has been a non-partisan approach to smoking cessation legislation in the House. I am glad, despite some of the issues and despite the Liberals voting down our worthwhile amendments at committee, that we are still advocating and supporting them on this. We see the benefit, much like governments since 1988 saw with the legislation from the Brian Mulroney Progressive Conservative government. Subsequent changes were made by Liberal governments. Now we are trying to bring that same non-partisan approach to a public health issue on how we can get more young people to stop smoking or not get into it at all.

I would also like to thank the great advocacy work of physicians of the Heart and Stroke Foundation and a number of other great groups that have been at the forefront of some of these smoking cessation pieces of legislation. As I said at the outset of my remarks, we are trying to be non-partisan here, but I am very partisan. I would like to see the same approach in listening to physicians, health care professionals, and families in many cases to stop the rush with respect to some of the measures on the Prime Minister's pledge on marijuana. I guess I can hold out hope that showing all-party support on a bill like this perhaps will have the Liberals revisit their approach to public health policy.

The final part in my speech goes back Craig Farrow, store keepers, and e-cigarette or vaping shop owners who have concerns about Bill S-5. There needs to be regulation in that space as well.

Before coming to Parliament, I was a lawyer for Procter & Gamble. At times, I was a toothbrush lawyer. In fact, some of its electric toothbrushes were medical devices, so they were already regulated. Therefore, the vaporizers that heat up the liquid and produce the vape are medical devices. It is a class II medical device. To be eligible for sale in Canada, a part of that industry are already being regulated. They need a device licence and an establishment licence for the facility that creates the vaporizing product. Why? Because these items Canadians use on their body or in their body. Therefore, we have to have faith that they are properly regulated, that they are safe and fit for use. That is why there is already regulation. I would like to see the same regulation applied to the sale, promotion, and labelling of products involved in vaping.

Certainly, when I met with Craig and a lot of the owners, they already do not list products with candy-sounding names and things like that. However, it is important for us to have regulation in place to ensure that it is consistent and to ensure there is not an outlier that would allow children to be enticed into it. While, studies show that it is better for people and can be an aid in getting people off smoking tobacco, there are health impacts, and people deserve to know that. It is also a $27 billion industry globally now, and it is growing. Therefore, it is appropriate for the Government of Canada to regulate it.

As I said at the outset, I would have preferred separate legislation as opposed to an omnibus-type bill approach here, but nonetheless the smoking cessation measures within the bill are positive.

I think the vaping industry will also take positives from the bill. Vaporizing in general will be used already by cannabis manufacturers. They are already getting their device licences approved for the delivery of a vaporized cannabis once the Prime Minister's cannabis regime is in place. What the vaping stores can look to is that in the future not just ingredients like nicotine can be part of devices. There is the potential, with proper regulation, for some types of over-the-counter or low level health benefit products to be part of delivery by vaporizer. If we bring regulation certainty to this area of public health, it will actually help Craig and his industry in the future.

It has been my pleasure to speak for a few minutes on this and to once again show that responsible shop owners and industry associations, by bringing their issues forward, are helping make public debate better. They are helping us improve legislation. They are also improving our overall awareness of the risks, but also the positives, when it comes to smoking cessation, of new products like e-cigarettes and those sorts of things.

Parliament is meant to talk about the good and about the bad. In areas where we can get young people off smoking, it is important to have all-party support like we have had with Bill S-5.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting to hear the hon. member mention the fact that he was a toothbrush lawyer. Therefore, I trust he will not bristle at this question.

There is always that fine balance between legislation and regulation. Could the hon. member give us a sense of where he would see things being legislated versus left to regulation, which might be more changeable over time?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a Friday afternoon, as we are winding down a week, the humour of the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells did not bristle; it was welcomed. I was a very proud toothbrush lawyer, toothpaste lawyer, and a whole bunch of things when I was with P&G.

The best thing we can do is to give the public information and education about the products they use. The Conservatives generally agree that the individual, particularly once they are an adult, can make choices and can make choices responsibly, but they have to do this by having the proper information.

When it comes to the issue of vaping, having certain ingredients listed, certain claims about any positive health benefit or any positive benefit of stopping smoking, those claims need to be substantiated by science and reviewed if they are a health type of claim.

When it comes to tobacco, the health and science is clear, and has been clear for two generations now. Bill S-5's thrust is the plain packaging. While there are a number of other issues in there, which we have all spoken about today, the evidence is clear. For countries that have adopted plain packaging, it has had an added impact.

Under the Conservative government, Canadians hit an all-time low in overall levels of smoking in Canada, but the bill has elements in it that can get that number even lower. People who choose to smoke, whether regularly or occasionally, have to be informed so they know the choices and they can make informed decisions on their own.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was happy to hear the member's support for programs like plain packaging, with the data we have on how successful that is, and his support for evidence-based policy making. He mentioned some of the claims from the industry, substantiated and unsubstantiated, with regard to e-cigarettes. Would he support a prohibition on unsubstantiated claims in that industry until we get the independent research that would answer those questions?