Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology
 

Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology

Issue No. 21 - Evidence - April 13, 2017


OTTAWA, Thursday, April 13, 2017

The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day at 10:32 a.m. to give clause- by-clause consideration to Bill S-5, an Act to amend the Tobacco Act and the Non-Smokers' Health Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Senator Kelvin Kenneth Ogilvie (Chair) in the chair.

[Translation]

The Chair: Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.

[English]

I'm Kelvin Ogilvie from Nova Scotia, chair of the committee, and I ask my colleagues to introduce themselves, starting on my right.

Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman, Montreal, Quebec.

Senator Stewart Olsen: Carolyn Stewart Olsen, New Brunswick.

Senator McIntyre: Paul McIntyre, New Brunswick.

[Translation]

Senator Petitclerc: Senator Chantal Petitclerc, from Quebec.

[English]

Senator Hartling: Nancy Hartling, New Brunswick.

Senator Mockler: Percy Mockler, New Brunswick.

Senator Dean: Tony Dean, Ontario.

[Translation]

Senator Cormier: René Cormier, from New Brunswick.

[English]

Senator Neufeld: Richard Neufeld, British Columbia.

Senator Eggleton: Art Eggleton, senator from Toronto and deputy chair of the committee.

Senator Griffin: Diane Griffin, Prince Edward Island.

The Chair: Colleagues, we're here to do clause by clause of Bill S-5. We have officials from Health Canada in the room with us. I'd like to ask the committee if they would like to have the three officials who were with us yesterday join us at the table. Would that be agreed?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: I would like to invite them. Please join us at the table.

Colleagues, this bill is quite long in terms of the number of clauses at 85. There are going to be amendments and so on. If at any stage in the process anyone is confused as to where we are, please signal and we will make sure everybody knows exactly where we are.

Again because of the length of the bill, I propose that I group the clauses in groups of 10, call a group of 10, and if there is any question within the group we will stop immediately. I will then recall up to the point of the clause around which there is a question, and we will proceed.

Is that agreeable to you?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Are you ready to proceed to clause by clause?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: In that case, I confirm that it is agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Tobacco Act and the Non-smokers' Health Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Is that agreed?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: That is agreed. Shall the title stand postponed?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Agreed. Honourable colleagues, you have agreed that I have leave to group the clauses in groups of 10, so I shall proceed.

Shall clauses 1 to 10 carry?

Senator Petitclerc: I have an amendment.

The Chair: There is an amendment, and the amendment is at which clause?

Senator Petitclerc: Clause 3.

The Chair: Clause 3. Let me call clause 1. Shall clause 1 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Agreed. Shall clause 2 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: We are now at clause 3. Senator Petitclerc.

Senator Petitclerc: I have an amendment in clause 3. Should I explain the amendment before?

The Chair: No. You read the amendment.

[Translation]

Senator Petitclerc: I move:

That Bill S-5 be amended, in clause 3, on page 2, by replacing line 26 with the following:

"part of tobacco, including tobacco leaves. It includes papers, tubes and filters in-''.

[English]

The Chair: That motion is in order. It is moved by the Honourable Senator Petitclerc that Bill S-5 be amended in clause 3 as described in her motion. The motion is before you and open for debate.

Senator Petitclerc: This motion is quite simple. In the Tobacco Act it did say "tobacco leaves,'' and this was taken out of Bill S-5. Many have brought concerns that they want that precision, for example, the cancer society. We felt that it was good to put it back.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Is that agreed?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Honourable senators, I have asked, "Is that agreed?'' and it was carried.

Shall clause 3, as amended, carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Clause 3, as amended, has carried.

I shall now call clauses 4 through 10.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Are those carried?

Hon. Senators: Carried.

The Chair: Shall clauses 11 through 20 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Clauses 11 through 20 are carried.

Shall clauses 21 through 30 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Clauses 21 through 30 are carried.

Shall clauses 31 through 40 carry?

Senator Petitclerc: I have an amendment in clause 36.

The Chair: Is there any amendment prior to clause 36 from anyone?

Hearing none, I am going to go to clauses 31 through 35.

Shall clauses 31 through 35 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Clauses 31 through 35 have carried.

I am now at clause 36, Senator Petitclerc.

[Translation]

Senator Petitclerc: I move:

That Bill S-5 be amended, in clause 36, on page 22, by replacing line 16 with the following:

"30.5 subject to the regulations, no manufacturer or retailer shall give or offer to''.

[English]

The Chair: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Petitclerc that Bill S-5 be amended in clause 36, page 22, at line 16 in English.

[Translation]

Twenty-two in French.

[English]

It is before the floor as an appropriate amendment. The motion is before you.

Senator Petitclerc: Those amendments that I'm proposing are all in line with the balance that we've been talking about.

If in the future it is viewed that it would be for health benefits, manufacturers or retailers would be able to give vaping products. The example I can give is via Quitline as it is sometimes given for nicotine patches. This would always be in the interest of public health. This is the goal of the amendment.

The Chair: The floor is open. On debate.

Senator Eggleton: Can I just understand? What we're saying here is no free vaping samples. What gives rise to this? I think you mentioned, senator, that patches can be given free. This is also a smoking cessation endeavour in doing this.

What gives rise to this particular need either from you or the officials?

Senator Petitclerc: I think, Suzy, if you want to reply.

Suzy McDonald, Director General, Tobacco Products Directorate, Health Canada: Right now, as the bill is set out, you wouldn't be able to ever give away a free vaping product. That is done because we want to keep it out of the hands of youth and make sure that it's accessible.

We have heard from a number of witnesses over the course of this committee that there could be in the future a public health benefit to giving a product away under certain circumstances. The idea here really is to allow for manufacturers and retailers to provide that product free of charge, but only when the regulations are set out in a way that it would be in the public health interest.

This couldn't be done without a full regulation explaining the circumstances under which a manufacturer or a retailer could give a product free of charge, and that would be only when it's meeting the public health need or a public health benefit.

I think testimony from Dr. Selby, Dr. Britton and others indicated that it was for people with mental health issues or other folks in the future. We might have enough evidence that we may want to do this. It's not for now but giving them regulatory authority to do so.

Senator Eggleton: This gives you flexibility to respond to that situation. That's fine.

Senator Stewart Olsen: I have reservations about the particular amendment in the fact that we know how problematic it is when physicians are able to give away free products, namely, packets of pills and things like that. I have reservations about it, not enough to oppose it but I will say on division on this one.

Senator Seidman: If I could just have a clarification about "subject to regulations.'' Yesterday in fact the question was asked: When this bill receives Royal Assent, is it in effect? The answer was yes. However, will all the regulations be written at the time? The answer was no.

There's my concern. There's a gap, and how are things protected during that gap period?

Ms. McDonald: When the bill receives Royal Assent, the prohibition in the legislation would fully apply. Manufacturers and retailers would not be permitted to give their product. Only once the regulations are put in place and fully approved, at that point those regulations would apply. Again, that would be done when there is a public health interest in doing so. There would be no gap.

Senator Seidman: That's really good. That satisfies my concern. Thank you.

The Chair: Are senators ready for the question?

Hon. Senators: Yes.

The Chair: The question is called. Are you in favour of the amendment?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

An Hon. Senator: On division.

The Chair: The amendment is carried on division.

Senator Petitclerc, I understand you have another amendment on this clause.

Senator Petitclerc: I have two more.

The Chair: Two more on this clause.

Senator Petitclerc, would you please proceed to your motion?

[Translation]

Senator Petitclerc: I move:

That Bill S-5 be amended in clause 36, on page 22, by replacing line 17 with the following:

"give

(a) a vaping product; or

(b) A thing that displays a vaping product-related brand element if

(i) the thing is associated with young persons,

(ii) there are reasonable grounds to believe that the thing could be appealing to young persons, or

(iii) the thing is associated with a way of life such as one that includes glamour, recreation, excitement, vitality, risk or daring.''.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Senator Stewart Olsen: Could I have the rationale behind that?

The Chair: You will, once the motion is on the floor.

It is moved by the Honourable Senator Petitclerc that Bill S-5 be amended in clause 36, on page 22, by replacing line 17. Shall I dispense?

Some Hon. Senators: Dispense.

The Chair: The motion is on the floor. On debate, Senator Petitclerc.

Senator Petitclerc: We have talked about some things in this motion. Right now, Bill S-5 does not prohibit the promotion of vaping products via giving. We talked about T-shirts, smartphone cases, baseball caps and all the things that can be appealing to youth. This really would expand the restriction to make sure that this does not happen.

The Chair: Further debate?

Hearing none, are you ready for the question?

Some Hon. Senators: Question

The Chair: All in favour?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: The amendment has carried.

Senator Petitclerc, I understand you have another amendment on this clause.

[Translation]

Senator Petitclerc: I move:

That Bill S-5 be amended, in clause 36, on page 23, by adding after line 10 the following:

"30.701 no person shall promote a vaping product or a vaping product-related brand element by means of advertising done in a manner that is contrary to the regulations.''.

[English]

The Chair: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Petitclerc that Bill S-5 be amended in clause 36 on page 23 by adding after line 10 a phrase.

Shall I dispense?

Some Hon. Senators: Dispense.

The Chair: On debate, Senator Petitclerc.

Senator Petitclerc: This answers the concerns of many that the restrictions at some levels were not strong enough when it comes to future advertising tactics or strategies that we don't see now.

It will give more flexibility to regulate, for example, the location of the content of advertisements on television and radio as well. It's really about giving flexibility to restrict further when or if needed in the future.

The Chair: On debate? Ready for the question?

Senator Eggleton: No.

The Chair: I'm sorry. We have a question.

Senator Eggleton: I think we definitely want to stay away from commercial advertising of the vaping products. Remember, we also want to give people who are trying to get off smoking knowledge about vaping products so that they know they exist and they can in fact get off of smoking tobacco products by going there.

The officials may want to answer this as well. Does this infringe in any way on attempts to deal with knowledge for people who are trying to stop smoking?

Senator Petitclerc: It is my understanding that it does not do that, but I don't know if Suzy wants to add to this.

Ms. McDonald: We talked a lot yesterday about the Charter, our Charter balance and trying to get that right. This provides some flexibility and some future proofing for the bill.

Essentially, it is again through regulations. If in the future we were to determine that advertising is happening during Saturday morning children's cartoons, we could take action to further restrict where that advertising could happen.

Again, that would be done through a regulatory process. That would need to go through consultation and we would need to have the evidence to demonstrate that there is public health harm.

Senator Eggleton: What is left in terms of people who want to get off smoking and want to find out about vaping products, e-cigarettes? What is left in terms of how they find out?

Ms. McDonald: Currently or after the regulation? Let's start with currently.

Senator Eggleton: Currently or after the regulations.

Ms. McDonald: Currently, as we have described, information and brand preference advertising are allowed anywhere where anyone can see right now: What the product is, how much it might cost, and why that product might be good.

What this really hopes to do again in the future is envision a time where we would have evidence that maybe we needed to restrict where that happened or how it happened. We could take action to make sure that happened.

Again, vaping products are not tobacco products. If we look at how we have addressed the tobacco issue, as we've been able to determine that things are appealing to youth and that they are having a public health impact, we have brought in more and more restrictions.

What we're trying do here is ensure that we have the appropriate protections so that in the future we could restrict advertising with the appropriate proof and if were able to demonstrate that it is appealing to youth.

Senator Eggleton: The balance concept is still very much there.

Ms. McDonald: It has to be there.

The Chair: If clear, scientific evidence based on clinical trials or something were to come forward, I would assume equally that you would have the flexibility to expand the opportunity for information. Is that true or not?

Ms. McDonald: Right now all information is allowed. This wouldn't be the regulatory clause that would allow us to do that. There would be other opportunities to do that. Because it's a prohibition this would allow us to further restrict. This would be tightening, not necessarily loosening.

Senator Neufeld: When I read the clause in the bill and I read the amendment, they're both saying the same thing.

No person shall promote a vaping product or a vaping product-related brand element by means of advertising . . . .

That's already in the clause, but it says done "in a manner that is contrary to regulations.'' In the bill it says "form and manner, the information required by the regulations.''

Please tell me what the difference is. It's already there. I don't know why we're adding it again at the end of the clause. You're just double saying something to me. It's already there.

Ms. McDonald: Perhaps, senator, if you don't mind, could you just refer to the specific clause that you're reading from?

Senator Neufeld: It's 30.7, page 23.

Ms. McDonald: Clause 30.7 is specific to labelling requirements and we already had the regulatory authority.

Senator Neufeld: No. It's advertising, what I'm reading. In line 10 you add to the end of what's already said there. I don't think I'm in the wrong place but I might be. All we're doing is saying it all over again. To me, it's already there.

Ms. McDonald: There is a slight nuance here. I will try to explain it. If I don't get it quite right, do let me know.

The issue here is what we're prescribing in the form and manner is what can be placed on the advertising in that case. That's what's being explained through the regulation there.

What we are suggesting here is an addition that would allow us to further restrict through additional regulations where that advertising could occur. Again, it is slightly different.

The first that's already there is prescribing what can be put in the advertising. The second is where it can occur and how we could restrict.

Senator Neufeld: You already say "required by regulations,'' so the regulations can clearly lay that out. To me to say that's required in the regulations and the bill now and then to say "done in a manner that is contrary to the regulations'' is saying the same thing.

If we like more words, I guess we want to make the bill longer and say the same thing more than once, but to me it's a bit of overkill. I think the nuance is a very small nuance, if there is any nuance, but I rest my case, chair.

The Chair: You have highlighted the nuance. Nothing further, Senator Neufeld.

Senator Neufeld: No.

The Chair: Any further intervention on this? Are you ready for the question on the amendment?

Hon. Senators: Question.

The Chair: All in favour?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Contrary?

An Hon. Senator: On division.

The Chair: On division. The amendment is carried on division.

Senator, that was your last amendment in clause 36, correct?

Senator Petitclerc: Yes.

The Chair: Shall clause 36, as amended, carry?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Clause 36, as amended, is carried. Did I hear "on division''?

Senator Stewart Olsen: On division, yes.

The Chair: Clause 36, as amended, is carried on division.

Shall clause 37 carry?

Hon. Senators: Carried.

The Chair: Senator, I believe you have an amendment in clause 38. It's on CP-5 on your handout.

[Translation]

Senator Petitclerc: I move:

That Bill S-5 be amended in clause 38, on page 24:

(a) by replacing line 20 with the following:

"30.43(1) subject to subsection (3) and the regulations, no person shall promote a vaping product, in-''; and

(b) by replacing line 25 with the following:

"(2) subject to subsection (3) and the regulations, no person shall promote a vaping product, including''.

[English]

The Chair: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Petitclerc that Bill S-5 be amended in clause 38, on page 24. Shall I dispense?

Hon. Senators: Dispense.

The Chair: On debate, Senator Petitclerc.

Senator Petitclerc: We have heard a lot of concern that this clause was too restrictive and that it would be very difficult for retailers or manufacturers to effectively communicate health risk information about vaping products to their customers.

Quite simply, this would allow via regulation a list of authorized messages. Whether it is this product is less harmful or this product contains chemicals or something like that, a list of authorized messages could be used to inform Canadians. That's basically what this is trying to do.

Senator Stewart Olsen: Can you just explain to me the authorized messages? Will those be contained in regulation?

Senator Petitclerc: Yes.

Senator Stewart Olsen: Once again, this will be able to be fine, but none of these authorizations or these authorized messages can be delivered until the regulations are published. Is that yes? Thank you.

The Chair: I take those nods for the record as yes.

Senator Petitclerc: Yes.

Senator Seidman: I think this is a very effective response to a lot of the testimony that we heard, including the testimony from Dr. Britton and Dr. Hammond, which was extremely credible.

My question has to do with how the messages are going to be constructed. Who will construct them?

Ms. McDonald: In a situation like this we would have to set out the regulatory authority that would allow us to create that list. In setting out that regulatory authority, we would need to be very clear about how that list would be constructed and who would be doing it.

To be honest, we haven't sorted through all of the details of exactly what that looks like, but our minister spoke yesterday about the fact that we with CIHR, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, are putting in place an expert science advisory body to look at the evidence. We would expect that would play some form in how this moves forward.

The Chair: Further questions? Are you ready for the question?

Hon. Senators: Question.

The Chair: All those in favour?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Contrary? I declare the amendment carried.

Shall clause 38, as amended, carry?

Hon. Senators: Carried.

The Chair: Clause 38, as amended, has carried.

I'm now calling clause 39 and I believe, senator, that you wish to make an amendment to clause 39.

Senator Petitclerc: I do, yes.

The Chair: This is CP-6 for those following their agenda.

[Translation]

Senator Peticlerc: I move:

That Bill S-5 be amended in clause 39, on page 26, by replacing line 24 with the following:

"30.43(1) subject to subsection (3) and the regulations, no person shall promote a vaping product, in-''.

[English]

The Chair: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Petitclerc that Bill S-5 be amended in clause 39, on page 26, by replacing line 24. Shall I dispense?

Hon. Senators: Dispense.

The Chair: On debate, Senator Petitclerc.

Senator Petitclerc: This clause really is addressing exception to the prohibition on promotion regarding health benefits and comparison to allow a person to use a statement to be prescribed by regulation.

I would like you to explain it, Ms. McDonald.

Ms. McDonald: This is quite a technical change. Because we are changing clause 38, we also need to change clause 39 so that it could be amended by order once we have a definition of the meaning of "health benefit.''

It's a technical amendment. They go together. You can't do one without the other, and frankly there's another one that would also need to be done to make the first one come into force.

The Chair: These are consequences of decisions we have already made, colleagues. Are there further questions? Are you ready for the question?

Hon. Senators: Question.

The Chair: All in favour?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Contrary?

I declare the amendment carried, and I will now put it to you.

Shall clause 39, as amended, carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Clause 39, as amended, has carried.

I will now move to clause 40, and senator I believe you have another one, which will be CP-7 in your deck.

[Translation]

Senator Peticlerc: I move:

That Bill S-5 be amended, in clause 40, on page 26, by replacing line 30 with the following:

"after section 30.701:''.

[English]

The Chair: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Petitclerc that Bill S-5 be amended, in clause 40, on page 26, by replacing line 30.

[Translation]

And line 31, in French.

[English]

with the following:

"after section 30.701:''.

On debate.

Senator Petitclerc: Again, I think it's a bit like the other one. It's just like a consequential clause. If you need more technical information, I'm sure Ms. McDonald will be happy to do so. It is a consequence of the changes we have made already.

The Chair: Any question? Are you ready for the question?

Hon Senators: Question.

The Chair: All in favour?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Contrary?

I declare the amendment carried.

The question now is: Shall clause 40, as amended, carry?

Hon. Senators: Carried.

The Chair: I declare that clause 40, as amended, has carried.

I will put to you clauses 41 to 43. Shall clauses 41 to 43 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Clauses 41 to 43 have carried.

In clause 44, Senator Petitclerc.

[Translation]

Senator Peticlerc: I move:

That Bill S-5 be amended, in clause 44, on page 28, by adding after line 17 the following:

"(f.01) respecting exceptions to the prohibition under section 30.5;''.

[English]

The Chair: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Petitclerc that Bill S-5 be amended, in clause 44, on page 28, by adding after line 17, the following:

[Translation]

Line 18 in French.

[English]

The Chair: the following:

"(f.01) respecting exceptions to the prohibition under section 30.5;''.

On debate, Senator Petitclerc.

Senator Petitclerc: This amendment is a bit technical. It complements what we have done to clause 36. Specifically it will give the Governor-in-Council the power to make regulations to set a condition to exemptions.

I don't know if we need more technical details on that. Ms. McDonald maybe, if you feel you need to expand.

The Chair: Are senators okay? Are you ready for the question?

Hon Senators: Question.

The Chair: All in favour?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Contrary?

I declare the amendment carried. I believe there are more amendments to this clause? Is that correct, Senator Petitclerc?

Senator Petitclerc: Yes, there are two more.

The Chair: This amendment is carried. I now take you to your deck and CP-9.

[Translation]

Senator Petitclerc: I move:

That Bill S-5 be amended, in clause 44, on page 28, by adding after line 22 the following:

"(g.1) respecting, for the purposes of section 30.701, the advertising of vaping products and vaping product- related brand elements;''.

[English]

The Chair: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Petitclerc that Bill S-5 be amended, in clause 44, on page 28, by adding after line 22.

[Translation]

Line 23 in French.

[English]

The Chair: The following:

"(g.1) respecting, for the purposes of section 30.701, the advertising of vaping products and vaping product- related brand elements;''.

On debate, Senator Petitclerc.

Senator Petitclerc: Again we are complementing the amendment that we proposed in clause 36 which added prohibition on the advertising of a vaping product in a manner that is contrary to a provision of the regulation.

Specifically, this one amendment will allow conditions to be placed on permitted advertisement of vaping products and vaping products-related brand elements through regulation.

The Chair: Further debate? Are you ready for the question?

Hon. Senators: Question.

The Chair: All in favour?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Contrary? I declare the amendment carried.

I believe you have another amendment, senator, so we will proceed to CP-10 in your deck.

[Translation]

Senator Petitclerc: I move:

That Bill S-5 be amended, in clause 44, on page 29,

(a) by replacing line 3 with the following:

"(f.2) respecting exceptions to the prohibitions under subsections 30.43(1) and (2);

"(f.3) respecting, for the purposes of section 30.45, the''; and

(b) by replacing lines 8 to 10, with the following:

"(6) paragraph 33(f.2) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(f.2) respecting exceptions to the prohibitions under subsections 30.43(1) and (2) and, for the purposes of subsection''.

[English]

The Chair: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Petitclerc that Bill S-5 be amended, in clause 44, on page 29. Shall I dispense?

Hon. Senators: Dispense.

The Chair: On debate, Senator Petitclerc.

Senator Petitclerc: This amendment is a response to the concerns we heard from many stakeholders. The amendment is proposed to add regulation-making power so that by way of an exception to clauses 38 and 39 statements regarding health benefits and comparisons relating to vaping products can be prescribed by regulation.

Manufacturers, retailers and others involved in the promotion of vaping products could only use the prescribed statements that we talked about before. It is related to the amendments in clause 38 and 39.

The Chair: Further debate?

Senator Eggleton: Let me ask about this. How will this be communicated?

In the case of tobacco we put the warnings on the packaging. Here you're dealing with a liquid substance. How will they be communicated, what health risks there are which I take it will come on the basis of whatever clinical trials or evidence is subsequently discovered? We seem to be still some distance from having a very clear idea about what these harms are.

We have already agreed that there can be harms from vaping, although less harmful than cigarette tobacco smoking. It's clear in tobacco how we would convey these health risks. How would you convey them here?

Ms. McDonald: In this case, again through the regulation-making power, what we're doing is bringing in that regulation-making power. We would then have the ability to create a list of claims manufacturers and retailers could use to promote their products. It could be on the product, but it could also be in advertising or other pieces that they are using.

By creating this exemption or this regulation-making authority, it allows under 30.43 which I described yesterday where it says "no person can talk about the health benefits.'' It would then give an exemption to that and allow them to talk about or to say something about the benefits, including for commercial purposes on the package, on advertising or in other places.

Senator Eggleton: We are talking about health risks here. This is the other side of the coin. These are health risks.

The manufacturers and the retailers may not be too agreeable to divulging a lot of health risks. The health risks on tobacco smoking were pretty much devised by you. They are a requirement on the packaging. How will you do that here?

Ms. McDonald: There is another clause in the bill that talks about what people have to put on their packages and how we define that. We have regulation-making authority to talk about the health effects they might need to put on their packages. That's already very well covered in the bill.

This talks about the commercial purposes. They would not be required to include this information because it's about relative risk. This is only about the potential comparative clauses that are currently not allowed.

However, your concern is more around what we can currently require them to do in terms of carrying information. We have regulation-making authority to require them to have ingredients, lists and other things that would be important for consumers.

Senator Eggleton: And you can also revise that for health risks.

Ms. McDonald: We could also revise through regulation. That's correct.

The Chair: Further debate? Are you ready for the question?

Hon. Senators: Question.

The Chair: All those in favour?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Contrary? I declare the amendment carried.

I now put to you: Shall clause 44, as amended, carry?

Hon. Senators: Carried.

The Chair: I declare that clause 44, as amended, has carried.

Shall clauses 45 to 50 carry?

Hon. Senators: Carried.

The Chair: Clauses 45 to 50 have carried.

Shall clauses 51 to 60 carry?

Hon. Senators: Carried.

The Chair: Clauses 51 to 60 have carried.

I'm calling clause 61, and I believe you have an amendment, Senator Petitclerc. In your deck, it is CP-11.

[Translation]

Senator Petitclerc: I move:

That Bill S-5 be amended, in clause 61, on page 39, by replacing line 30 with the following:

"or (2) section 30.4 or 30.701 is guilty of an offence and liable on''.

[English]

The Chair: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Petitclerc:

That Bill S-5 be amended, in clause 61, on page 39, by replacing line 30 with the following:

"or (2), section 30.4 or 30.701 is guilty of an offence and liable on".

On debate, Senator Petitclerc.

Senator Petitclerc: This amendment is a little technical. It has to do with offences and regulation to allow further advertising restrictions. Really, it's in order to insert offence to go along with the new prohibition.

That's a bit technical. I don't know if we want to have Ms. McDonald to speak on it.

Ms. McDonald: I think you did an excellent job.

Senator Petitclerc: Thank you.

The Chair: Let's see if there are any questions for further clarification. Are honourable senators ready for the question?

An Hon. Senator: Question.

The Chair: All those in favour?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Contrary? I declare the amendment carried.

Shall clause 61, as amended, carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: I declare clause 61, as amended, carried.

Shall clause 62 carry?

Hon. Senators: Carried.

The Chair: Clause 62 has carried.

I will now call clause 63, and I believe there is an amendment here.

[Translation]

Senator Peticlerc: I move:

That Bill S-5 be amended, in clause 63, on page 40 by replacing line 17 with the following:

"(2), 30.37(1) or 30.48(1) or (2) or section 30.701 or 30.71 is''.

[English]

The Chair: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Petitclerc:

That Bill S-5 be amended, in clause 63, on page 40, by replacing line 17 with the following:

"(2), 30.47(1) or (2) or 30.48(1) or (2) or section 30.701 or 30.71 is".

On debate.

Senator Petitclerc: This is a follow-up to what we just did in clause 61 with regard to offences. This amendment in clause 63, which is similar to what we just did in clause 61, is proposed because it wants to take into account the coming into force of this clause, which will occur 180 days following Royal Assent.

It relates to the amendments that we proposed already in clauses 36, 40, 44 and 61 just now.

The Chair: Further debate? Are honourable senators ready for the question?

Hon. Senators: Question.

The Chair: All those in favour of the amendment?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Contrary? I declare the amendment carried.

Shall clause 63, as amended, carry?

Hon. Senators: Carried.

The Chair: I declare that clause 63, as amended, has carried.

Shall clauses 64 to 67 carry?

Senator Seidman: I have an amendment in clause 67.

The Chair: I believe you are adding a new clause. I was going to call you immediately after for a new clause.

Senator Seidman: Yes, 67.1.

The Chair: You are okay.

Senator Seidman: It's not included under 67. I just want to be clear. Thank you.

The Chair: Absolutely. I want to make sure. This is a very important bill.

Senator Seidman: Yes. We're good.

The Chair: We're good. All right, I'm going to repeat:

Shall clauses 64 to 67 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: I declare clauses 64 to 67 carried.

This addition would be in your decks at JS-1, I believe. .

Senator Seidman: I will move:

That Bill S-5 be amended, on page 41 by adding after line 20 the following:

"67.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 60:

Part VII.1

Review of the Act

60.1 (1) The Minister must, two years after the day on which this section comes into force and every two years after that, undertake a review of the provisions and operation of this Act.

(2) The Minister must, no later than one year after the day on which the review is undertaken, cause a report on the review to be tabled in each House of Parliament.''

The Chair: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Seidman that Bill S-5 be amended, on page 41, by adding after line 20 the following: Shall I dispense?

Hon. Senators: Dispense.

The Chair: On debate, Senator Seidman.

Senator Seidman: I would like to say, first of all, that I did consult with the law clerk and this amendment was drafted by the law clerk. There's nothing unusual about it in the sense of how we go about asking for a legislative review of an act.

We heard from many witnesses who came in front of us that there should be a full legislative review after two years, because there is so much new, so much left to regulations and so much uncertainty around these new products.

What I have done here is try to reflect this in the amendment.

It should be noted that it says two years after the law comes into force. Then the review is done and the report is tabled a year after that. In effect, the total period of time for the review to be tabled in both houses of Parliament is three years.

I'm open to taking any questions now.

Senator McPhedran: Thank you for this. I think it's really important. Could you just help me with the last part of your statement that in effect it will be three years?

Senator Seidman: If you read both parts of this, the review is taken two years after the law comes into force. Then:

The minister must, no later than one year after the day on which the review is undertaken, cause a report on the review to be tabled in each House of Parliament.

The review begins two years after the law comes into effect; the report is tabled a year after that. In effect it's a three-year period.

Senator Eggleton: No later than.

Senator Seidman: Yes, no later than. It could be tabled earlier.

Senator McPhedran: I wanted to offer this based on some considerable experience in my previous life with the legislative review mechanism. I heartily support the tenor of the proposed amendment.

I just want to suggest that for brand new legislation two years or even three years is a very short time for the first report. Would you consider making the two years three years? Let me explain why.

The gathering of evidence is always more demanding and more difficult with a new law. Setting out the baseline as to where do we start, how do we develop meaningful comparisons, and how do we reorganize within officialdom to essentially reallocate resources of people and statistical support, take considerable time to organize. I would strongly support every two years after but I would invite you to consider adding one more year to the very first review.

Senator Seidman: Thank you.

Senator Petitclerc: My question was in the same direction. I wanted more precision on when it comes into force. Is it on Royal Assent or is it after regulation? I want to go in the same direction. Maybe two years is short for a new piece of legislation. I wanted to have your comments on that.

Senator Seidman: Thank you very much, Senator McPhedran and Senator Petitclerc.

First of all, in answer to your question about what this really means, Senator Petitclerc, there is nothing. There is no knowable time after Royal Assent. There's Royal Assent and then there's the regulations coming into effect, but we don't know exactly when that will happen.

According to the standard approach to legislative review it's always as of Royal Assent. That's the standard. I think that's my answer to your question about that. This clearly refers to after Royal Assent. It can't refer to anything else because we don't know the period of time for the regs. It's unknown.

With regard to two years, I understand that it will take some time to write the regulations. I also understand that this bill is now in the Senate. It will have to go to the House of Commons. It will have to go through the House of Commons. We have no idea how long that period will take. That will give some time to officials to continue to build the regulations.

Even though witnesses requested a two-year review, because this is such important legislation and because it is new legislation, as Senator McPhedran put forward, I also understand the need.

Perhaps at the outset the period might be extended to three years. I would be willing to say three years after the day on which this section comes into force and every two years after that. I would be willing to accept that kind of an amendment to this amendment.

The Chair: I have three people on the speaker's list. I wonder if they would be willing to have us address this offer of Senator Seidman before they speak.

Senator McIntyre, you were next on the speaker's list. I will call the list so you know.

Senator McIntyre: I want to thank Senator Seidman. I think this is an important amendment. I understand it was drafted by the law clerk.

On a matter of clarification and nothing to do with the two or the three years, in 60.1(1) and (2), we use the word "must.'' I find that "must'' is close to "shall.'' Should we use the word "shall'' instead? The law clerk used "must.''

Senator Seidman: Yes. This was drafted by the law clerk. My understanding is that this is standard language. There was nothing unusual about any of the language here.

Senator McIntyre: I was just wondering about the word "must'' instead of the word "shall.'' In legal jargon we often use "may'' or "shall.'' I was just throwing that in.

The Chair: Lawyers like to fudge things.

Senator McIntyre: Yes, lawyers like to be technical.

Ms. McDonald, do you have any comments on that?

Ms. McDonald: I think that everyone has raised very important points. Thank you for raising the point about the time that it takes to gather evidence.

Senator McIntyre: I have never seen "must'' before. It's always "may'' or "shall.''

Ms. McDonald: We were just asking about that. We were questioning "must'' versus "shall.'' I don't think that there's a legal difference.

Senator Seidman: There's no legal difference.

Senator McIntyre: Okay.

Senator Eggleton: I support this amendment and now as it's revised. My recollection is that usually the reviews come at the five-year period, but I think we're looking at a bill in which we are going into a lot of uncharted territory. There are a lot of regulations involved in the bill. A lot of things are not here that will subsequently be added. I think there is a concern with how this evolves and how we manage to maintain balance, particularly with respect to the vaping program.

It does, for me, call for something earlier. I think three years is a reasonable compromise and then every two years thereafter.

It's quite clear that "coming into force'' is not the same thing as Royal Assent. When Royal Assent is given, usually it leaves open the date for it coming into force, and coming into force is when it's ready to be implemented in some way. It may not be every part of it, but I would imagine some of the regulations will have to be in effect for it to come into force and then bring about a review with some meaningful information.

I think the motion as revised is a good one.

Senator Stewart Olsen: I'm happy with the tenor of the discussion and probably with the revision by the critic. I just wonder if we could hear from the officials on the doability of the proposed amendment.

I am concerned that the regulations must follow fairly swiftly upon Royal Assent of this bill simply because as you can see the Senate committee is trying very hard to protect consumers.

Do you think three years is reasonable?

Ms. McDonald: Once the bill receives Royal Assent, based on what we're looking at here, this would come into force upon Royal Assent. This requirement would hit the ground.

We would have impact from the legislation immediately on day one. However, as has been clearly laid out, it takes some time in order to be able to measure those impacts.

The question for us is: What's an appropriate amount of time to be able to do so? Much of the bill comes into force immediately upon Royal Assent. Some of the provisions have a 180-day coming into force provision because those are the kinds of timelines required for international agreements and other such things.

We are already six months in before some of those provisions come into force and then, as many of you have pointed out, we have the requirement to put the regulations in place. Regulations do take time. Let me reassure you that we are working internally on what those regulations might look like.

We need to notify. We do need to have them published for a 75-day period for first consultation, CG1; another 75- day period, particularly with something like this where there is a lot of international trade; and then again finalize them in CG2.

That takes about 18 to 24 months in a typical timeline. Can we look at those timelines? Absolutely we can.

Another point I would make is that we are taking an industry that has not been in compliance and trying to bring them into compliance with a piece of legislation. That will also take time.

There are some things we plan to go out on very heavy-handedly in the beginning, as we've talked about and I think the vaping association would agree with such as child-resistant packaging and other things where we take action. We expect that there will be a period of compliance promotion and explaining to people what do you need to do to be in line with the law. How does that look? What does that look like? Making sure that everyone is coming on board takes a bit of time as well.

The two-year review seems like we wouldn't have enough evidence or data to come back at that two-year mark. Extending it a bit would give us room to make sure we're coming back with something that's more substantial and actually meets the requirements you are setting out or what you would be expecting us to do.

I would add there are clinical trials and other scientific evidence. We are setting up this expert body. We would expect that to feed into it too. There are ways we could be feeding out information sooner for everyone to have available to them. In terms of review of the legislation itself, two years does feel very tight to the bureaucrat.

Senator McPhedran: How do three years feel?

Ms. McDonald: It also feels very tight, but I recognize we're trying to come to some agreement. If we add the 6 months and 24 months for the regs, we are reviewing just as things are getting into place.

I understand the concerns about wanting to make sure we're doing the job you all expect us to do and that it is having the impact you're expecting. I'm not sure what the balance is. With that 3-year mark, if we add 24 plus 6 that gives us 6 months of data and we probably can't even crunch the numbers in that time frame.

Senator Petitclerc: I want to expand on the same discussion. I want to say that I agree with how important that is.

In light of everything we've been listening to and the standard practice or the five years I heard a few times, is every two years too often? Do we have the resources to do it every two years? Is there enough data every two years? I don't know if you have thoughts on that. I don't know if Ms. McDonald can say what they think about that.

Senator Seidman: I'm happy to begin. I think that it probably takes time to get up and running, all things considered. It made sense to me, listening to the argumentation and listening to the department people, to say three years with a year to write the report. You have the gathering of your evidence, so now we're to four years. It's really the four-year mark.

Then it seems to me that a systematic review every two years is possible. It becomes systematic in a way. Yes, you have to feed in more data. However, it becomes critically important to have that two-year review after the three-year review, and then perhaps that can be re-evaluated.

It's not written in stone that for evermore it's every two years, but you have the first review in three years, the next review in two years, and then you can have a look at that to see how it's going. It's critically important to build in the kind of protection for all Canadians.

Under the circumstances, with so much science unknown, we don't know if vaping is effective for cessation. We hear a lot of dual usage. We don't know if it will renormalize smoking for young people. We don't know what kinds of toxins vapors are really exposed to. We do not even know how to measure a lot of those toxins. We're not really sure about second-hand exposure and how to measure that.

All things considered, everything is so unknown that I really feel it's important to keep tabs on this as parliamentarians. We're opening the door to something. We need to be able to feel secure in ourselves that we're doing the right thing and that we're able to monitor.

Senator McPhedran: I want to endorse that approach. I think that four-year period is probably going to work. The additional benefit of this in some ways is highly consistent with the goal of building a more inclusive democracy. We're also continuing to keep an open communication for people in Canada, the non-profit organizations and the product organization, so that this doesn't become a closed process between the parliamentarians and officials.

We know it has a robust regulatory framework. We know there's a lot of latitude there. I think that's a very good thing. It also is very important to allow folks whose daily lives are being impacted in a range of ways and their advocacy organizations to have a voice and a pathway.

The Chair: On listening to all of you, I think this is a very good thing to add to this bill. We are entering into an area where we're dealing with chemicals vapourized in a new regime. There will be tremendous observations as to the impact. New things are going to come into the spectrum here. We're not going to be limited to just what's already ahead out there.

Creativity is going to abound with this new regulation. A lot of new things are coming on in related areas, without going into them. We know that technology is advancing very quickly. The ability to detect and determine impacts is increasing at a considerable rate.

Senator Seidman, do I hear you agreeing to a friendly amendment, in the first line of 60.1(1), that "the minister must, three years. . .?''

Senator Seidman: Yes, that's exactly what you hear. I agree to the friendly amendment.

The Chair: Is it understood by all members of the committee that Senator Seidman has accepted a friendly amendment to her amendment, and thus the amendment on the floor is:

60.1(1) That the minister must, three years after the day on which this section comes into force and every two years after that, undertake a review of the provisions and the operation of this Act.

(2) The minister must, no later than one year after the day on which the review is undertaken, cause a report on the review to be tabled in each House of Parliament.

Does every member understand the amendment?

Hon. Senators: Yes.

The Chair: Are you ready for the question on the amendment?

Hon. Senators: Question.

The Chair: All those in favour?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Contrary? I declare the amendment carried.

Shall new clause 67.1 carry?

Hon. Senators: Carried.

The Chair: I am now calling clause 68. I believe we have an amendment on that, Senator Dean.

Senator Dean: We do, chair.

The Chair: That would be TD-3 in your docket, would it?

Senator Dean: That would be mine, yes.

The Chair: All committee members turn to item TD-3 in their packet of papers. Senator Dean, you have the floor.

Senator Dean: This is an amendment that would propose to ban menthol and cloves in all tobacco products. When I walk through the amendment, I will refer to three columns of information.

For those who do not have a paper copy in front of them, as I name each column title the words that follow should be understood to fall underneath that title.

The amendment is this:

That Bill S-5, in clause 68, be amended by adding after line 24 on page 41 the following:

(3) Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by adding the following after item 1.1:

Column 1

1.2

Column 2

-menthol (CAS 89-78-1)

-1-menthol (CAS 2216-51-5)

-1-menthone (CAS 14073-97-3)

-menthol

-cloves

Column 3

Tobacco products

(4) Subsection (3) comes into force on January 1, 2018.

The Chair: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Dean that Bill S-5 be amended, in clause 68, after line 24, on page 41. Shall I dispense?

Hon. Senators: Dispense.

The Chair: On debate, Senator Dean.

Senator Dean: This is an amendment that would ban menthol and cloves in all tobacco products, thus extending the current federal provision that bans menthol in cigarettes, most cigars and blunt wraps, but not yet other tobacco products. This amendment would close an existing gap.

For example, menthol pipe tobacco has been introduced in Alberta and Ontario in a way that skirts the ban on menthol cigarettes, as was described to the committee. In some provinces menthol is still allowed in roll-your-own tobacco and cigarette papers, among other tobacco products. Several provinces have already banned menthol and clove flavours for all tobacco products.

Menthol and cloves can be considered a local anaesthetic, something I experienced at age 16 when offered a first menthol cigarette. These flavours can make it easier for young people to experiment and become addicted to tobacco products. Cloves have been found in clove cigarettes, which are tobacco cigarettes with clove flavouring that are also known as kreteks. Products can be found for sale in Canada. Kreteks so far have not been covered by federal restrictions on flavoured tobacco. The amendment would come into force on January 1, 2018, to provide for a transition period.

The Chair: On debate, Senator Eggleton.

Senator Eggleton: Can I ask the officials about this and about the date of January 1, 2018, and whether that poses any challenge?

Ms. McDonald: As many of you know, Health Canada is committed to protecting the health of Canadians. The minister has recently moved to ban menthol in other products including cigarettes, little cigars and blunt wraps. This would extend that overall prohibition, and I don't see any issue with that.

Particularly with regard to your question about January 1, 2018, that's a little more difficult for us in that generally for international trade agreements, as I've already explained, we need a 180-day transition period. We have no control over how quickly this bill will make it through all of the steps it needs to make it through.

We would require 180 days between Royal Assent of this bill and when it would come into force in order to meet our international trade obligation requirements. I can't predict that January 1, 2018, is a perfect date. It might need to be amended, should this bill take longer to make its way through.

Senator Eggleton: Could I suggest a friendly amendment, then? You're suggesting that instead of a hard date the language could be 180 days after.

Ms. McDonald: After Royal Assent.

Senator Eggleton: Would Senator Dean accept that?

Senator Dean: I would be happy to accept that fine suggestion from my colleagues.

The Chair: Colleagues, we have a friendly amendment accepted by the mover of the amendment. I want you to draw your eyes back to the amendment to be sure of the new subsection (4):

Subsection (3) comes into force 180 days following Royal Assent.

Ms. McDonald, is that the appropriate language?

Ms. McDonald: It is. Thank you.

The Chair: Does every member of the committee understand that?

Hon. Senators: Yes.

The Chair: Are you ready for the question on the new amendment before you?

Hon. Senators: Question.

The Chair: All those in favour?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Contrary?

I declare that the amendment has carried, with the effect that it is 180 days following Royal Assent. Shall clause 68, as amended, carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: I declare that clause 68, as amended, has carried.

Shall clause 69 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Clause 69 is carried.

Shall clause 70 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Clause 70 is carried.

Shall clauses 71 to 80 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Clauses 71 to 80 have carried.

Shall clauses 81 to 85 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Clauses 81 to 85 have carried.

Shall the schedules carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: The schedules are carried.

Shall the title carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: The title has carried.

Shall the bill, as amended, carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: I declare that the bill, as amended, has carried.

Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report?

Hon. Senators: Yes.

The Chair: Do you wish to discuss observations in public or in camera?

Senator Eggleton: I suggest we discuss them in public.

The Chair: Before proceeding, I need to make sure that all members of the committee have copies of three observations.

We will take a minute or two to make sure that everyone has the observations before them.

I'm going to call them in the following order: Senator Seidman, Senator Eggleton, and Senator Petitclerc. Are we all ready to proceed?

I will invite Senator Seidman to present her observation.

Senator Seidman: I think you all have it in hand. I would first like to make a correction to one word which is not correct. The third line should read: "nicotine is a highly addictive substance.'' We might think it is a drug but it's not; it's a substance.

We've heard this is going to be in the regulations, the clear requirements or clear standards which relate to the e- liquid itself and the nicotine levels in the e-liquid.

As an observation, we heard from many witnesses about the highly addictive nature of nicotine. It would be important to ensure the quality of the ingredients used and that there are some standards around the concentration levels of the nicotine.

We heard specific numbers tossed out to us. I believe it was 24. That's the actual titration of this. We heard particular numbers. I didn't want to include particular numbers here. I wanted to leave that to the experts, so I made it fairly general as far as the concentration level standard is concerned. I didn't specify a number. I leave that to those who understand that more readily.

I do make reference here to the labelling. We heard testimony that there should be labelling on the packages so that it's clear what's contained in the e-liquid, all the ingredients and not only the nicotine, because there are a lot of other substances in the ingredients. Just like the food we consume, people are consuming the liquid and they should know what they're consuming. It's a question of giving information to people so they know what it is they're taking into their systems.

I tried to leave the oversight a little more general because I didn't feel we should be prescribing to the authorities who would be writing the regulations. We heard things like the type of e-liquid container should be childproof, for example. There were other aspects to ensure as much safety as possible around the e-liquid, both the liquid itself and the container in which it's placed.

In addition, we heard aspects around the vaping devices and their component parts, the batteries that tend to explode, and the coils that tend to have build-up and issues around them.

This observation is in a sense, a warning to those people writing the regulations that we heard a lot about this in testimony. They should pay attention to that when they're writing the regulations.

The Chair: Remember, this is an observation to the government. It does not carry force with it.

All those in favour of appending the observation?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Contrary? Thank you. The observation will be appended.

I will require a further motion in a bit, with the change. I'll come to the issue of language at the end as well.

Senator Eggleton: I'll read my observation. We may all have it on the table, but for other people in the room and those watching on television I'll read it. It's fairly straightforward.

During the committee's proceedings members heard testimony that the contraband tobacco trade continues apace in Canada. While the weight of the evidence heard suggests that the adoption of plain packaging would not have a profound effect on the incidence of contraband tobacco in Canada, it was made clear that more needs to be done to combat this illicit trade. Therefore, the committee urges the government to consider measures to curtail the production of contraband tobacco, including regulations that would restrict the import of substances used primarily in the manufacture of significance — such as acetate tow — to licensed manufacturers.

I also asked this of the minister who indicated she was quite favourable to further looking at what could be done in terms of contraband tobacco and to include the substances used in the manufacture of it such as acetate tow, which is quite a dangerous kind of substance. It's one as it gets into the hands of people in the illicit trade that helps them in terms of the marketing of their product.

That's my observation.

The Chair: Discussion?

Senator Neufeld: I don't disagree with what Senator Eggleton is saying here, but when I did ask the minister where the tobacco products were coming from she said that it was not her ministry's responsibility but it was that of CBSA or some other department of government.

Whether this means anything to the ministry that's responsible for this I don't know. I don't have any problem with what it says, Senator Eggleton. I'm just saying she was clear in saying, "That's not my bailiwick. It's someone else's.''

Senator Eggleton: This is directed to the government as a whole, not to a specific ministry.

The Chair: I was going to make that point. Very clearly, Senator Neufeld, you asked the appropriate question and got the answer. It is an issue, and this bill is the one we have as a vehicle to carry the observation forward. I think it's entirely appropriate in that context.

Any further discussion? Are you ready for the question? All those in favour of appending this observation, please signify.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Any contrary? Carried.

Senator Petitclerc.

Senator Petitclerc: I too will read my observation. It's pretty much self-explanatory.

The committee heard from the vaping industry that their products were primarily intended to help smokers quit using tobacco.

When the sale of vaping products with or without nicotine will be legal, the probability is very high that people, certainly well-intentioned but without medical training, will be tempted to provide clinical advice for smoking cessation.

The Committee requests the government to consider the existence of this risk in the development of regulations following the adoption of Bill S-5, in particular by emphasizing existing provisions that do not authorizes non- professionals to give medical advice.

I think there is a "to'' that is to be taken off of there.

This is a big concern of mine. With everything that will need to be done, we forget to make sure that we don't end up with individuals with no medical training providing health or cessation advice.

The Chair: Further discussion? Are you ready for the question?

Hon Senators: Question.

The Chair: All those in favour please signify.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Contrary? I declare the observation approved.

I now have a motion as a result of what we've done today that I must put to you in the following order.

I would like it moved by Senator Eggleton that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to approve the final version of the observations being appended to the report, taking into consideration today's discussion and with any necessary editorial, grammatical and translation changes as required.

Senator Eggleton so moved.

Senator Eggleton: It's standard wording.

The Chair: That's approved? Thank you very much. That motion is approved.

I need to perhaps have Senator Eggleton move that any necessary consequential changes be made to the numbering of provisions and cross-references as the result of the amendments to this bill.

In other words, we have a numbering change. There may be technicalities. We don't expect any but that's the nature of that. Is it understood?

Are you ready for the question? All in favour?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Contrary? That's approved.

Finally, is it agreed that this bill be reported, as amended, and with observations, to the Senate?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: I take that as unanimous. It's unanimously agreed that the bill, as amended, and with the observations approved, be reported to the Senate.

With that, I want to thank this committee for a remarkable process. This was a bill with an enormous public and industrial interest. You were all besieged with observations of fairly forceful kinds.

I want to commend the committee in the balance of the witnesses that we had. I believe we had a very good discussion of all key issues, with solid arguments on all sides of them. I want to thank the officials for being available to us and answering questions yesterday the way they did. Senator McPhedran?

Senator McPhedran: I would just like to add to the record our commendation to our colleague Senator Petitclerc for her first sponsorship of a bill.

The Chair: I think we can take that as unanimous in our agreement. I think we ought to also acknowledge Senator Seidman as critic for the bill in the constructive way in which she approached a very serious piece of legislation and the contributions that you both made in leading to the successful conclusion of this bill.

Is there anything further before I declare the meeting adjourned? If not, I declare the meeting adjourned.

(The committee adjourned.)