THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, September 24, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met with videoconference this day at 10:30 a.m. [ET] to study the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 9 and 12 of Part 4 of Bill C-31, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025; and, in camera, for consideration of a draft report.
Senator Rosemary Moodie (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: My name is Rosemary Moodie. I’m a senator from Ontario, and I chair this committee. Before we begin, I’d like to do a round table and have all senators introduce themselves.
Senator Burey: Good morning and welcome. I’m Sharon Burey from Ontario.
Senator Martin: Good morning. I’m Yonah Martin from British Columbia.
Senator Senior: Good morning, everyone. I’m Paulette Senior from Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Boudreau: Good morning. Victor Boudreau from New Brunswick.
Senator Arnold: Dawn Arnold, also from New Brunswick.
Senator Petitclerc: Good morning. Chantal Petitclerc from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Osler: Good morning. I’m Flordeliz (Gigi) Osler, senator from Manitoba.
Senator Muggli: Good morning. I’m Tracy Muggli from Saskatchewan, Treaty 6 territory.
The Chair: Today we will continue our study on the subject matter of certain elements contained in Divisions 9 and 12 of Part 4 of Bill C-31, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025. Our discussion today will be focused on Division 12, which amends the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act.
For our first panel, joining us by video conference, we welcome, from the Canadian Cancer Society, Rob Cunningham, Senior Policy Analyst; from the Heart and Stroke Foundation, Foram Patel, Senior Specialist, Policy; and from the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction, Dr. Alexander Caudarella, Chief Executive Officer. Thank you for joining us today.
For your opening statements, you will have five minutes, followed by questions from committee members.
Helena Sonea, Director, Advocacy, Canadian Cancer Society: Good morning, everyone. Honourable senators, thank you so much for the opportunity to testify today.
My name is Helena Sonea, Director of Advocacy for the Canadian Cancer Society. With me today is Rob Cunningham, Lawyer and Senior Policy Analyst.
Tobacco is the leading preventable cause of disease and death in Canada, responsible for 46,000 deaths annually, including about 30% of all cancer deaths. There are still 11% of Canadians who smoke, representing 3.6 million people. Far more must be done to achieve Health Canada’s objective of under 5% tobacco use by 2035.
Further, we are very concerned by high rates of youth vaping. Among high school students in Grade 12 in Canada, 27% are vaping, compared with 9.5% smoking. Now we have rapidly increasing use of nicotine pouches by young Canadians. A recent national longitudinal study found an increase in ever use of nicotine pouches from 8% in 2022 to 35% in 2026, and the current use increasing from 1% to 8.5% in the same period.
A new generation of youth is becoming addicted to nicotine through e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches, and this is just unacceptable, from our perspective.
I will now turn things over to Mr. Cunningham.
Rob Cunningham, Senior Policy Analyst, Canadian Cancer Society: Thank you, Ms. Sonea.
In May, at a national round table of health organizations and experts held in Ottawa, a new, much-needed objective was set to reduce nicotine use to less than 5% by 2045, in addition to the objective of less than 5% tobacco use by 2035. We urge Health Canada to endorse and aggressively pursue this additional objective.
Regarding Bill C-31, Division 12 of Part 4, clause 281, we do not support this provision. Clause 281 amends the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act, or TVPA, and specifically the obligation on the Minister of Health to review the TVPA and report to each house of Parliament. This section was originally introduced and adopted by this committee in 2017 through an amendment during committee consideration of Bill S-5, which amended the TVPA.
The current provisions of the act, as initiated by this committee, require the Minister of Health to table a report in Parliament every two years. The Bill C-31 amendments would weaken this considerably, with reports having to be filed every five and a half years, which includes the stated five-year period plus an additional six months to file the report. Even that could be extended if Parliament is dissolved for an election or is prorogued. If there is such a delay, or if Health Canada is late filing, that prompts further delays for the start and end of the subsequent filing period. Thus, there is a minimum deadline of 5.5 years — or twice in 11 years — with the possibility of further delays. That means that over a 10-year period — a decade — there might only be one report actually filed, with the next report pending for year 11. That is not nearly enough.
When dealing with a massive public health issue, parliamentarians and Canadians should be quickly informed of emerging developments. We have seen how rapidly the marketplace can change with vaping products and now nicotine pouches.
Health Canada may feel that having a report every two years creates too much of an administrative burden, but this can be managed, for example, by having every other report streamlined and include core data. Not every report needs extensive consultation.
Having frequent reports to Parliament assists with monitoring and identifying legislative and regulatory gaps and needs. It can also assist provinces and territories with data breakdowns.
The government has implemented many commendable measures, including plain packaging, health warnings on packages and directly on individual cigarettes, the tobacco manufacturer’s cost recovery fee, tax increases, a series of e-cigarette regulations and requiring nicotine pouches to be sold only in pharmacies from behind the counter. These are having an impact.
To build on this, many new measures are needed. For example, the government should finalize national regulations to restrict flavours in e-cigarettes to reduce youth vaping. A draft regulation was published five years ago in 2021, but a final regulation is needed on a pressing basis.
The Chair: You’ve run out of time. Can you wrap up for us, please?
Mr. Cunningham: Thank you.
There should also be an online sales ban on tobacco and e-cigarettes, a ban on any remaining promotion and the closure of a tax loophole for e-cigarettes. To maximize progress, we should be strengthening measures.
Honourable senators, your questions are welcome. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Cunningham.
Ms. Patel, you have five minutes.
Foram Patel, Senior Specialist, Policy, Heart and Stroke Foundation: Thank you, Madam Chair and honourable senators, for the opportunity to appear before you today and to represent the Heart and Stroke Foundation.
Heart & Stroke is a national charity focused on reducing and preventing heart disease and stroke. Over 6 million people in Canada are living with these conditions — conditions that are affected by tobacco and nicotine product use.
Our recommendations today are only focused on Division 12 of Part 4 of Bill C-31, and our recommendation is straightforward: We would like you to amend Division 12 to retain the current two-year review cycle and the existing May 23 deadline for tabling the report. We do not support extending the review cycle to every five years, nor do we support the deadline for tabling the report being a six-month period.
For decades, Canada has steadily driven down smoking rates, but, unfortunately, this has coincided with a surge in youth vaping and the use of other nicotine products. The challenge we are facing today is not only preventing smoking but also ensuring that a new generation does not get hooked on nicotine, either through smoking, vaping or any other nicotine product use.
Unfortunately, they are being targeted by the industry through different products that are available in different packaging: discreet, easy to use and easily accessible. Research shows that, over many decades, smoking harms cardiovascular health. We are also finding out that, in the short term, nicotine by itself increases blood pressure and heart rate, which has consequences on cardiovascular risk. Even vaping has been shown to damage the blood vessels and effect health harms. While the products may have changed, the harms remain, and it is essential that we protect young people.
Heart & Stroke has heard from many people living with heart disease and stroke who wish they had never started smoking, vaping or using other nicotine products. For them, tobacco and nicotine addiction is not an abstract policy issue. It is a lived reality that has contributed to life-altering cardiac events, lengthy recoveries and ongoing concerns about their health and future.
With respect to the legislative review cycle, a five-year interval may be appropriate in the context of a relatively stable market, but the tobacco market of today is global and constantly evolving. It has changed quickly with the availability of vaping products and the introduction of other nicotine products in newer forms and through a newer form of marketing.
Within a five-year time frame, products can be introduced into the market, reformulated, widely distributed and promoted to young people well before the next statutory review even begins. This is particularly concerning because the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act has explicit youth protection objectives. These include protecting young people from inducements to tobacco and vape use, restricting their access to these products and protecting them from nicotine dependence.
Regular reviews at least every two years would provide a structured and transparent opportunity to assess whether the act is meeting those objectives and keeping pace with changes in products, marketing practices, retail channels, consumer behaviour and evidence concerning their health effects. This would also allow public health organizations, researchers, governments and other interested parties to identify gaps and recommend improvements.
The experience of previous reviews has been instructive. The first review focused only on vaping-related provisions; the second on tobacco-related provisions. This shows you can have reviews that are more structured and focused, without doing a comprehensive review of the whole act.
This is why regular review is also important. We want to make sure that Canada is keeping pace with the rapidly changing tobacco market and that there is a legislative accountability framework in place to protect young people. Moving from two to five years would reduce accountability, weaken an important mechanism for identifying emerging threats and also weaken youth protections.
The decision this committee makes will help shape how effectively future generations are protected from tobacco and nicotine products. We therefore urge you to amend Division 12 to keep the current two-year review cycle and the existing deadline for tabling the report. This approach provides clarity without sacrificing timely review, transparency or the Parliament’s ability to respond to an evolving market. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Dr. Alexander Caudarella, Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction: Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
My name is Dr. Alexander Caudarella, and I am the CEO of the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction, or CCSA. I’m a family physician who has worked in the area of addiction and mental health for some time.
[Translation]
The Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse and Addiction, or CCSA, is an independent, non-governmental organization created by Parliament to provide national leadership on substance use and to advance solutions to address substance use health issues.
We welcome the opportunity to contribute to your study of Bill C-31, particularly the proposal to move reviews of the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act from every two years to every five years.
[English]
Our organization is very interested and concerned in this area. Our work, for example, around the economic impacts, health, productivity and criminal justice of these different substances has been routinely recognized as leading-edge on that.
Regular statutory reviews are valuable. They create an important opportunity to step back and ask whether legislation is achieving its objectives, whether the evidence or marketplace has changed and whether adjustments are needed. I concur with the other witnesses here around the absolute necessity for these to be taken seriously.
However, the kind of recurring statutory review that we are speaking about is a bit unusual among psychoactive substances in Canada. The Cannabis Act required a single legislative review. The independent expert panel that was formed conducted that review and subsequently recommended that future reviews be mandated at regular intervals and suggested five years in that case.
From our perspective, a five-year review cycle for the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act could be reasonable, but it really is more about what it is doing and what it’s accomplishing than about other pieces, so whether a longer interval means that we’re not actually waiting five years to identify and respond to emerging issues and that there are appropriate mechanisms and an ability to do that. It’s really important to be distinct between legislative review and ongoing oversight, and I think the latter can’t be ignored in this context.
[Translation]
Last year, CCSA provided a submission to Health Canada’s third legislative review of the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act, which focused on compliance and enforcement. We identified several opportunities to strengthen compliance and enforcement, including greater transparency around enforcement activities and outcomes; more systematic monitoring of promotion, particularly online; and ensuring sufficient resources to enforce the rules already in place. This last point is important because, in many of its responses to submissions, the government indicates that not enough resources were allocated to enforcement. Once again, if resources could be reallocated to this area, it would be critical.
Importantly, these activities can continue between legislative reviews. A move from two-year to five-year reviews may provide an opportunity to focus additional capacity on ongoing monitoring, enforcement and evaluation, helping to ensure the act continues to achieve its objectives as the environment evolves.
[English]
There is also value in considering how future reviews are designed and conducted, so having clear objectives and scope, as we’ve already heard, and transparent consultation processes. But what would be really important to consider if they do switch to five years is how we are going to hear from a broader range of perspectives, as opposed to the usual actors who tend to submit things. How are we going to hear from the public health community more broadly? How are we going to ensure we hear from researchers? As people who smoke become a more marginalized group, how are we going to make sure that the consultation is appropriate with lived and living experience, youth, their families, police, and I also want to point out Indigenous leaders and communities? There is a disproportionate impact that seems to be happening there. How do we ensure the consultation is real and meaningful?
Finally, the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act provides an opportunity to think more broadly about how Canada regulates the promotion of products that can affect health.
We recently released a report comparing Canada’s legal frameworks governing the promotion of tobacco, vaping, cannabis, alcohol and gambling. We found significant differences in the protections they provide, even as promotion increasingly occurs across the same digital and social media environments.
Tobacco and vaping legislation provides relatively strong protections, particularly for young people. But those protections only work when the rules keep pace with changing promotional practices and are effectively monitored and enforced. There is evidence that youth are increasingly exposed to smoking and vaping in film, television and on social media. We also already heard about the potential harms. It’s by addressing these types of well-known gaps in a timely manner that we will offer the best protections.
Working together, I think we can support and find a way to do what’s absolutely necessary for this. I look forward to your questions. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Caudarella.
We will now proceed to questions from committee members. For this panel, senators will have four minutes for your question, and that includes the answer.
Senator Burey: Thank you, everyone, for being here.
I wanted to start by saying that I’ve worked in this field myself, and I can remember kids as young as 10 starting smoking. I followed them across their lives and the effects on their health and well-being. This issue is very dear and important to not just me, but Canadians and families.
I’m having some difficulty trying to find out — and this is the legislative review part. Health Canada came yesterday and said that they can do it in five years and they will get the same information or might be able to deploy resources. We’ve heard from the Canadian Cancer Society, Heart and Stroke and now CCSA.
My concern is that if it’s not in the bill, as usual, funds are not dedicated to it. I can see what Dr. Caudarella said in that it might be possible to do it in five years, but we know that if things are not written, it doesn’t get done. How can we ensure the ongoing monitoring and all the selective things we need to be doing are maintained?
This question is for everyone.
Mr. Cunningham: There is an opportunity to ensure we are effectively monitoring the developments in terms of prevalence, enforcement statistics and product volumes so that we can react quickly to new products. There are very good tobacco reporting regulations, and they’re going to get better with respect to tobacco. That can be used as part of the basis of a report.
Dr. Caudarella: I want to concur that there’s nothing necessarily preventing the reporting, data and provision of data at different intervals. We are seeing a rapidly changing landscape, and these kinds of opportunities provide an opportunity to think about not only how frequently but also what data is most important. We had conducted a survey of 2,500 youths; we know they’re still being exposed, even if they’re being less exposed to nicotine and vaping. Over 20% are being exposed to media that may be promoting nicotine and vaping.
How is this constantly changing, and how are we learning? Are we trending in the right direction in our enforcement efforts? That data doesn’t need to be limited to the legislative review cycles.
Ms. Patel: The review cycles are helpful in two ways. One, we get to provide our input. If there is new research evidence that surfaces, new publications that come out showing the impacts of newer products, we’re able to convey that information to the government, and we are able to hear from other researchers, as well.
You might have also heard that there are many different surveys out there looking at vaping and smoking rates, all with different methodologies and providing different estimates. When you have so many different surveys, you also benefit from getting the perspectives from health organizations. Which ones are more robust? Which surveys should be continued with? In addition to the legislative review, surveys are a good way to measure what is going on in real life — how many young people are using these products. Those inputs are the best way that we can provide information to the government, and a legislative review provides that opportunity.
The other way those reviews are helpful is that when the Health Canada report comes out where they compile all the information and feedback they’ve received, along with that report, there’s also additional information. One key piece is this: In the price of a cigarette, how much of it is made up by federal tax, provincial tax, and how much is the retail markup? As a charity, we don’t have access to that information because that comes from retail sources, which are very expensive. In a way, these reports are helpful in us getting that information from the government on a lot of different measures that we wouldn’t be able to get ourselves.
Dr. Caudarella: I will quickly add further to say that part of why I was bringing up that our report speaks about these different legalized substances is that there are opportunities potentially to combine reporting for different pieces so that you can have a lower cost associated with every single report or piece, as well.
The Chair: You may have noted that I gave extra time. That’s because we recalculated. You will have five minutes for your submissions.
Senator Martin: Thank you to all our witnesses.
When vaping was introduced into the legal framework in 2018, I remember it was specifically marketed as a harm-reduction off-ramp to help adult smokers quit. As you explained today, Ms. Patel, while those rates of smoking may have gone down in adults, there has been a surge in numbers of those vaping, including younger and younger people.
Dr. Caudarella, you also talked about some of the well-known gaps as to who needs to be consulted, but I didn’t hear on your list of Indigenous police, families and researchers about the teachers on the ground, whom I know personally, including my own husband, where this is a growing concern. Sometimes, I feel the information we gather — if it’s medical, we may have some stats on who is seeing doctors in hospitals, but we don’t know the actual reality on the ground.
Would you speak to the importance of the data that is collected? Also, when you talk about nicotine products — other products — because they are so addictive, what are those other products? Are we addressing them?
I’m worried about the five-year versus the two-year review, because there’s so much going on in the industry. As you said, it’s global.
I would love to hear from Ms. Patel and others.
Ms. Patel: Absolutely.
Yes, while they were initially marketed as a smoking cessation tool, they were never approved as such. Vapes ended up becoming a gateway for young people to start using nicotine. There was all the progress we had made in reducing smoking, but then this group was now creating a new problem of the vaping crisis.
The market is evolving in such a way that, now, in order to circumvent the legislation, the tobacco companies are coming up with synthetic nicotine products. These are tobacco-free nicotine delivery mechanisms. Because they are not derived from tobacco, the way you define the products then changes what legislation regulates them in terms of marketing, access, legal age of sale and promotion, especially online.
I would caution that when you do an every-two-year review, you at least get to hear from a lot of different people what new products are coming into the market. Once they grab a hold of young people, it is very rapid. That also happened with nicotine pouches that came out in 2023. Within a few months, they became so popular, especially among young kids.
Then, this whole idea that nicotine is safe by itself puts out these newer and newer products so that when they are smoke-free, they get to say they are less harmful. But that doesn’t mean they’re harmless.
Teachers have been one of the best resources. Especially when new products come in, and we’re still gathering data, and surveys have not caught up with it, anecdotal evidence is really helpful. High school coaches and teachers are the first line of contact for these young people and can understand how these people are using it, where they are getting these products from and what the impact of nicotine is on their daily lives, especially cognitive functions. Is it interfering with their performance in school? Do they have to sneak out of classrooms or at lunch breaks just to get a puff of vape or sneak a pouch in?
Again, reviews provide that opportunity, and it’s crucial that, in addition to health organizations, we also hear from teachers.
Senator Martin: I will ask a follow-up to you and potentially others if we have time. If we keep the five years — if we’re not successful in convincing the government to keep the two years — what are key safeguards that should be added in order to ensure we are protecting youth, especially, from all of these new products?
Ms. Patel: Because legislation is one of the best ways to provide protection, if there can be other opportunities provided to hear from stakeholders where we have direct input and can share with members of Parliament and the Senate what new products are coming into the market —
Also, legislation is a very long process. The reason why we could take quick action on pouches was also because it came through a ministerial order as opposed to going through legislation.
While I’m not an expert, I would say that any mechanism that allows us to respond quickly and decisively to new products would be really helpful. Reviews are more efficient in that way in that you hear from everyone at once every few years. I can’t think of any other alternatives, but I defer to other experts here to see if they have any suggestions.
The Chair: We have unfortunately run out of time. I hope we can go to the second round and discuss some of these safeguards.
Senator Osler: Thank you to all the witnesses for being here. My question actually is the same as Senator Martin’s, but it is a two-part question. The question is for all the witnesses.
Was your organization consulted on the proposed amendment? That’s the first part of the question. The second part is this: If the legislative review goes to every five years, what mechanisms or safeguards would you consider important to ensure that emerging public health risks can still be addressed in a timely manner?
Dr. Caudarella, you listed some, and, Ms. Patel, you spoke to some, so I suggest we start with the Canadian Cancer Society.
Mr. Cunningham: We certainly have had discussions with Health Canada with respect to the review process and the issues in terms of the administrative aspects to that. We were not specifically consulted with respect to the content of the amendment that’s in Bill C-31.
In terms of safeguarding kids, there is one way to do that in terms of adopting measures: restricting flavours in e-cigarettes, having the minimum age at 21, banning remaining promotions and closing the taxation loophole for e-cigarettes.
Regarding the review process, what can we do? I think it is important that there be regular reports on the data compiled so that we are not falling behind in our knowledge. It should be compiled and put out regularly. In the U.S., the reports are narrower, but the Federal Trade Commission provides annual reports to Congress. Now, they are sometimes late, but it’s the principle of frequency.
Dr. Caudarella: It is important, first of all, for parliamentarians to be aware of and for there to be a mechanism in place regarding the changes in science. Senator, you mentioned it previously. Although it was brought about as a harm-reduction measure, the science continues to be uncertain about whether e-cigarettes are actually effective at helping people stop using combustible cigarettes. I think mechanisms for parliamentarians and senators to be aware of that are critical.
There are a few things that can be helpful, and we don’t have time to elaborate on all of them, but in some of our reports, we speak about how, in some European countries, some of the enforcement and data collection have been tasked to NGOs or organizations outside the government. There is mandatory data reporting as well. There are also mechanisms around ensuring excise taxes continue to be matched to inflation to make sure that they are working as well as they should be. There is also the question of what happens to that revenue and whether some of it needs to be put aside.
Again, there is the review, and then there is what you do with it. We know it is working to some degree because it is better than the numbers from other substances, but could we do better, and how much does it actually cost to do better?
Senator Osler: Was the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction consulted on the amendment?
Dr. Caudarella: To my knowledge, we weren’t specifically consulted on this before its release.
Ms. Patel: As other witnesses have said, we were not specifically consulted on the review process timeline, and I concur with the suggestions that have been mentioned so far on providing better safeguards.
Just as a small addition, whenever we get new products, it would be better to put the burden of proof on companies to show that they are not going to harm young kids. There are always indications that they are going after young kids: with flavours, with marketing and social media promotion. Having better safeguards would mean that we are very picky about and selective in what products we let enter our markets.
Senator Osler: Thank you.
Senator Senior: Thank you to all our witnesses. My two esteemed colleagues, the last two, asked both my questions, so I have had to come up with another on the spot.
Because yesterday we heard from Health Canada — probably about 10 times — that the regulations are where they are hanging their hat as they propose to change this legislation, I would like to hear commentary from all of you as to whether you have much faith that the regulations will be the place to put in protections and to address things like new products on the market, as you mentioned, Ms. Patel. Could you comment on that?
Ms. Patel: I would say that in order to move in a better direction, especially as the world is changing, it would be first helpful to have all tobacco, vaping and nicotine products housed under the same legislative framework. Currently, we have a patchwork system. Nicotine pouches are under the Food and Drugs Act, whereas tobacco and vaping products are under the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act. That creates perhaps not different standards but different regulations, and then we are plugging holes as we see new products come into the market.
We need strong restrictions and protections that combine and treat all these products as coming from a similar source because they do. If you look at pouches and vaping products and trace who has control over the sale of these products, they always go back to the tobacco industry. Bringing those under the same regulations would be important.
I would reiterate that the two-year cycle is important. Five years is still a very long time. If you are considering a different timeline, then a more frequent one is better than five years or five and a half years from the review to the tabling of the report.
Senator Senior: Thank you.
Mr. Cunningham: Senator Senior, with respect to your question, there is a tremendous opportunity to have good measures through regulation. We have seen that with plain packaging and health warnings. Going forward, we can restrict flavours in e-cigarettes, and we can have plain packaging for e-cigarettes, a warning directly on the e-cigarette device, reporting requirements, additional promotions. There is a tremendous opportunity to do a lot through regulations.
Dr. Caudarella: I agree that it offers a lot of levers and opportunities. It just comes down to the transparency with which it is done, the consultations that go into it and, ultimately, how they are spoken about and how committees like this one can hold them accountable. I don’t know that regulations prevent any of that, but it is all about how it is done.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: I’d like to thank each of you for being with us today to help us with this study.
Yesterday, when we were discussing this proposed five-year period, Health Canada told us that, even if we stick with this time frame, data is collected every two years anyway. So the response was that, in any case, this data collection takes place every two years.
I’d like you to tell us about this data collection in comparison to a review. This morning I reviewed the third review, which includes certain recommendations or desired actions. To what extent do you think data collection every two years, for example, would be sufficient or insufficient?
[English]
Ms. Patel: Data is an important piece of this, along with the review cycle. One thing to know about the data landscape within Canada is that, at one point, we had four different surveys measuring vaping rates among youth. Some have been made obsolete, and the surveys that have been discontinued provided us key pieces of information that we don’t have anymore. They collected data on the most popular flavours among young people. One other key data point was, among people who vape currently, how many are former or current smokers. That information helped us find out if vaping was a gateway or was helping people get off of cigarettes. We have lost a lot of important data points.
We used to have the Canadian Student Alcohol and Drugs Survey, which was an excellent survey because it collected data from schools, so kids were not at home, where their parents could see the responses, because they obviously would not admit that they vaped, used a pouch or smoked in front of their parents.
It had a very good sample size that provided us with very strong and robust estimates, and it was very comprehensive and collected a lot of information. This has, unfortunately, been replaced by a survey that is much more consolidated. We have lost a lot of important questions. In a way, the direction we keep seeing is fewer surveys and longer review cycles; that again brings back the concern that we are not being timely and nimble and keeping up with the changes in the market.
[Translation]
Dr. Caudarella: I would add that, of course, in the world of data, it’s all about context: How does this compare, and what are the goals? As my colleague mentioned earlier, it’s also about how this is done with regard to the available data. For example, so far, in our economic studies, we’ve been able to conduct analyses on tobacco. We’re not yet at the point where we can say the same thing about vaping based on the national data that’s being collected.
I would say there is more work to be done. However, when we compare these studies and the data, is it presented in a way that gives politicians the opportunity to determine whether it’s a success or not? The way the data is currently presented on the radio or on TV, it’s hard to see what’s going on.
Mr. Cunningham: Senator Petitclerc, first of all, thank you for your work in 2017 on this committee that passed this amendment to Bill S-5.
There is data, but it is difficult to access data for a lot of Health Canada information and surveys. If we have a report, we can organize and present the figures. It can be available to the public, to members of Parliament, the House of Commons and the Senate. That’s one of the reasons for more frequent reporting.
[English]
Senator Petitclerc: Am I correct to feel like there is a gap in what we know, the effect on youth, the collection of data, the three reports — well, the last one is so new — and the action that we pause? We say we have regulatory flexibility, yet I always feel like we are being reactive and not proactive. Am I correct in reading that? I’m seeing nods. Can we get that on the record?
Mr. Cunningham: There is a tremendous need for action. One of the realities in this area is the opposition from the tobacco companies that really slows the development of regulation and the opposition from other commercial interests. So, yes, having the information assists us. Over time, we have seen how public health has been able to prevail over commercial interests.
The Chair: I would like to insert a question here. I thought I heard from you, Ms. Patel, that the data submission that you provide is not self-driven, not spontaneous; it is reactive to a legislative review cycle.
Would that be the same for you, Dr. Caudarella and Mr. Cunningham, for your organizations? My sense of this is that this is not something that is happening in any kind of predictive fashion and not spontaneously happening that Health Canada can count on data flowing in. It is a response to a call. Am I correct on that?
Dr. Caudarella: From our end, we try and take a number of proactive measures. We feel that we have a national mandate to be able to answer and address this. We are very thankful, for example, for the funding received from Health Canada. But a very small proportion of that can currently be dedicated towards vaping because that’s just the way things have been so far.
There is no necessity for things not to be proactive. This is where we have tried to tell a story, and we would like to, increasingly, as time goes on, tell continuous stories so people understand how things are changing year to year and not simply in response to it.
Mr. Cunningham: Chair, I can add that we certainly participate and respond to the consultations when they arise, but we are also proactively providing recommendations to the government, separate from consultations. So there is a lot to be done, and we urge that.
Senator Arnold: Thank you all for being here today. I have a really simple question and kind of naive and ignorant. I don’t know what a nicotine pouch is. You said you are “using pouch.” What does that mean?
Ms. Patel: For a visual representation, imagine a Tic Tac but just a bit bigger, and it is essentially like the silicone pouches that you see. Those are there in the products to ensure that they stay dry. It contains nicotine and a few other products, very minimal, and it is put between your gum and your lower lip. You can put it on your upper lip as well. The idea is that nicotine will get absorbed.
It was initially meant to reduce short-term cravings for people who are addicted to nicotine. So it wasn’t a product that you would use for a longer time. Ideally, you would be on smoking cessation medications so that you would be quitting nicotine also completely and not just smoking.
Pouches are so discreet and easy to use because you can just slip in. I can bring a pouch or a case next time. When you open it, it smells so minty it would put a lot of gums to shame. So a lot of times kids will use it because that way they don’t get caught in school because there is no smoke, no vapour, and you can just put it in your mouth and forget about it.
Senator Arnold: But it’s still 100% nicotine?
Ms. Patel: Nicotine with a few other ingredients. I can follow up with a list of ingredients in there. But, primarily, the most active substance in there is nicotine.
Senator Arnold: And it’s under the Food and Drugs Act; it is not a controlled substance in any way?
Ms. Patel: No. So the pouches that are legally available for sale in Canada should only have four milligrams or more. In terms of legislation, if a product has more than four milligrams of nicotine, then it qualifies as a prescription product. So four milligrams just keeps it within that space where it can be a natural health product, sold over the counter and easily accessible.
Senator Arnold: Wow.
Ms. Patel: Now, the concern is that in the U.S., there are products available with 20 milligrams in one pouch. Sometimes kids will use multiple pouches at the same time.
There was a recent article by the Truth Initiative where they were talking about a situation in the U.S. where health professionals, when treating people for nicotine addiction, would have to put on three or four patches of nicotine to help them wean off because the daily consumption had reached 50 milligrams per day. It is a serious issue.
There is also an interesting survey of youth from B.C., and they were looking at what the symptoms in young people who are using pouches are. Many reported nausea, vomiting, dizziness — indications when you have consumed a lot of nicotine. Those signs are showing up. This is why when you have something as palatable, easy, discreet and readily available, it can do a lot of damage and a lot of addiction really fast.
Senator Arnold: There are no restrictions on purchasing those?
Ms. Patel: Currently, there are. They are now kept behind the counter in pharmacies only, and we want to make sure that it stays that way. When they first came into the market, they could be in gas stations and convenience stores. I live in Waterloo, and in the region that I live in, there are two universities, a college and two schools within a square kilometre. I could throw a pouch out, and it would land on a young adult or a teen. So there was a sticker at the credit card payment where it just said “ZONNIC,” and it would be intriguing enough that you would want to know what it is. There are kids coming in to grab a coffee or a snack every now and then, and they were constantly exposed to the marketing. But now that we have put it in pharmacies, it has been very helpful in at least reducing that exposure and protecting young people.
Senator Arnold: Great. Thank you very much.
Senator Boudreau: Thank you to the witnesses for being here. When I hear that more than one in four youth vape, that concerns me a lot, and I can’t help but think that if all these products just tasted like old, plain tobacco, they probably wouldn’t be as popular. It is the flavours that are the issue here, and it seems like a pretty easy fix. Some provinces, including New Brunswick, have fixed it. I’m proud to say that.
We heard yesterday from Health Canada, and, quite honestly, I feel it is a pretty lame excuse; the reason they haven’t enacted this in over five years is because there doesn’t seem to be common ground between the provinces and territories. I would like to hear your reactions to that explanation that was given to us by Health Canada. Is there anything you think that your organizations can do to help build that national consensus if that’s what it will take to get the federal government to move on flavoured products?
Ms. Patel: Absolutely. On our end, we have been doing polling. We have been seeing strong support from people across Canada for flavour restrictions for a long time.
Currently, we have a patchwork where some provinces have flavour restrictions and others don’t. That creates a very unfair environment where you get protection based on your postal code.
We have provided a lot of evidence. Research has built up now, showing how effective flavours are in hooking young people onto nicotine. Nicotine by itself is very addictive. Flavours make it even more palatable. When you have an addictive product in a palatable flavour, there are a lot of different things it does. First, in the research that they have done, they find that young people don’t think that fruity-flavoured vapes are as harmful, because when you see strawberry flavour, you think, “Strawberry — fruit — okay, healthy, not bad.” There are a lot of young people out there who do not understand the health harms associated with vaping by itself or nicotine by itself.
We have provided evidence for years with surveys. A 2021 report came out where we had surveyed youth across Canada. There was wide popularity. In fact, about 90% said that if flavours weren’t available, they would either stop vaping or not even consider vaping. Flavours are becoming that gateway.
We hope that Health Canada can see that it is unfair that when provinces take up that leadership role and provide protection, and then the federal government doesn’t do that, it creates that imbalance where young people stay exposed just because there is no national-level ban.
Dr. Caudarella: The evidence is very clear in the public health community about its attractiveness to youth. It is used as a promotional material. The INSPQ in Quebec released a report recently that demonstrated that when they banned flavours, it was not associated with an increase in tobacco product purchases. The idea that somehow removing flavours would prevent its utility in other ways hasn’t borne fruit in the provinces that elected to do it.
To your question about what organizations can do, our organization has a mandate around alcohol and other drugs. There is no national organization that has the funding or mandate around tobacco or vaping specifically. I think having an organization like ours be able to do more and funded to be able to bridge stuff between provinces and the feds — it is just a reality that this is a space that is occupied by different departments, everything from law enforcement to health, to different levels of government: federal, provincial, municipal. Having people outside government who can help support that can be really critical. I think there are unique opportunities. But I think that the evidence is quite clear about the flavour piece.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Boudreau: Can we hear from the Canadian Cancer Society?
Mr. Cunningham: We need a national regulation. Some provinces want this very much. Health Canada should be demonstrating leadership, not necessarily waiting until there is unanimity between 13 provinces and territories to say that this is an immediate priority.
The Chair: That is very good. Thank you.
Senator Muggli: Thank you. I’m really trying to hone in on our task here, which is two years versus five years. It sounds to me like there is a lot of stuff that happens regardless of the timelines of the review of the legislation. People are still doing studies. People are still publishing research. Maybe there are even some programs being developed. I don’t know if any regulations have actually changed as a result of a two-year review.
What I’m interested in hearing from you is whether there have been changes advanced out of a two-year review or not? What is it we might not be able to accomplish without a formal review of the legislation?
Mr. Cunningham: The benefit of a review is it focuses attention on the issues. Where have we been, where are we now, and what do we need to do? There is a lot of indirectness and multiple inputs that go into regulations being adopted. It is not just a single thing.
If we go to five and a half years — because it really is five and a half years the way the bill is worded and then just over 11 years for a second review — that’s a long time, given how rapidly the marketplace changes. We’re playing catch-up too much. The tobacco companies are ahead of us. They have market research and are introducing new products. We are behind and we need to get ahead.
Senator Muggli: Do you have an example, Mr. Cunningham, of a change that has resulted from a two-year review?
Mr. Cunningham: That’s a better question for Health Canada because a lot of the things that we have been urging, we have been urging for a decade. So then a review may be a further input to move something along and to accelerate its final adoption.
Senator Muggli: I guess I’m worried that no matter what the timeline is, you may or may not see changes. Ms. Patel?
Ms. Patel: We have no way of knowing if it was only the feedback from the review that led to the implementation of a new regulation, but it certainly helps build consensus. When Health Canada hears from multiple organizations that they should be implementing one specific policy, that helps build that evidence and consensus and helps them see the need for something that should be done urgently.
At the same time, they hear a lot of different perspectives. So teachers are really important to provide that data. Researchers provide more empirical evidence and research evidence that further complements the anecdotal evidence that you might hear from teachers and parents. Health organizations, on our end, provide lived experience of young people. A lot of times we will hear from medical students from universities who run student clubs and they have letter-writing campaigns where they reach out to health ministers, urging them to, for example, restrict flavours. So we bring that lived experience into our submissions because it is not just data. It is also a person, at the end of the day, who gets affected by regulations, so they should be hearing from them. If not for the review, how else would they hear from a regular Joe out there?
Dr. Caudarella: I concur that it really comes down to who you are able to reach, and that’s why it needs to be so purposeful. Our organization, if we speak to the people in the usual space, all they want to talk about is opioids, which is important. It’s only when you start going to schools and families, it is all about vaping. It’s all they want to talk about. If we can use reviews in a way which ensures that we have a clear plan of how to reach the people that don’t get to speak to ministers regularly, that’s where it is critical, and that’s how we will see changes. They need to understand what the Canadian public needs and wants, and I think that’s really critical.
Senator Muggli: The key is there actually must be changes that come out of those reviews. That’s the part that I’m not completely convinced on yet. But that’s regardless of a time frame of a review.
Dr. Caudarella: And in a fiscally austere environment, can we look at all legal substances a bit more together in terms of what we are learning that is happening and working in different categories? In certain jurisdictions, it is the same sellers who are selling cannabis, alcohol or nicotine. Can we get more value out of our dollars? I think we can go further and make sure that we are hearing not just from wonderful people like you have today around the table but from real Canadians.
Ms. Patel: The important piece is also accountability. So when they table a report, they have to show what feedback they got. That creates an accountability mechanism. If they are tabling a report and it shows that, repeatedly, organizations have been asking for a specific recommendation that has not been implemented, you can always go back to the reports and use that as a way to show Health Canada that this is something that has received consensus and should be done. Even if it does not get done, again, you have evidence now to show that this is something that needs to be done.
Senator Muggli: Thank you.
The Chair: Senator Martin, you had a question earlier that we didn’t have enough time to get to. I think it was on safeguards. Can you pose it again? We’ll give it an opportunity to go around as a second round.
Senator Martin: I feel like you have provided good examples of what could be done, but in the event that it does become a five-year review, what are some specific safeguards or measures that you feel should be in place, in addition to what you’ve already provided?
This could be for all witnesses, but we can start with Dr. Caudarella.
Dr. Caudarella: Thank you. We’ve mentioned some of the big ones that are there. I’m a bit biased, but I feel that people outside government — NGOs like ourselves, who are at arm’s length — can have a significant role in increasing that level of accountability, data sharing and knowledge sharing. Having an ability to expand our mandate to be able to do more in those spaces can support that overarching goal, and we obviously work with other partners around the table here.
I do come back to pieces like what is happening around enforcement and excise taxes. We want to look more broadly at how we’re speaking about things. Again, this is a rapidly emerging field, and there are some really concerning data that have been coming out, not only about increased use and not only about increased harms of nicotine. We’ve heard about potential biomarkers that are really concerning. But also is it as effective as it was first promised as a smoking cessation aid? There was a really powerful study in the Journal of the American Medical Association last year that showed that maybe it isn’t as much.
We need to make sure of that accountability and that Parliamentarians are equipped with the data so they can hold the people making the decisions accountable.
Senator Martin: Earlier, to what Senator Muggli was asking about specific examples where change did happen because of a two-year review, I was curious about the nicotine pouches now being behind the counter. Was that one of the things that changed because of a two-year review?
Ministerial orders are very — maybe that is the fastest route, but to do it legislatively is such a process. To react quickly to a fast-emerging market, how do we do that? What are those safeguards or measures that can be very quick and effective? Ministerial orders are one that I’m picking up on, but how did nicotine pouches get behind the counter?
Ms. Patel: Thank you so much.
Nicotine pouches are a great example of how fast — it’s a case study that I cite a lot of times in the policy space. We reacted, and we course-corrected very quickly.
I want to go back to the better safeguard aspect of it. What did not happen well during that process was that there wasn’t a public disclosure of the evidence that Health Canada received from the companies that were trying to bring nicotine pouches into the market. We have such a robust process when we approve new drugs to come into our markets. Why shouldn’t we have a similarly robust process for new nicotine products coming in?
Drugs are therapeutic, whereas nicotine products are highly addictive, and they always grab onto people who are not smoking. Having a similar robust review process — market entry is such a good first portal where we can do better gatekeeping and review evidence as it emerges, again, putting the burden of proof on the companies that are trying to bring those products into the market to provide efficacy, effectiveness, some real-world evidence, what impact they see and what unintended consequences could be a result of product use.
We need to have very comprehensive information before we allow the sale of these products into the market. That’s another way that we can be better prepared and better protect our young people.
Senator Martin: Thank you very much.
Mr. Cunningham: If I could add, senator, what happened is that when Imperial Tobacco launched ZONNIC nicotine pouches in October 2023, they did it with lifestyle ads — with happy young people in a social setting or with athletics, just like classic cigarette lifestyle ads. There was an outcry in the public health community. Allegedly, this was for smoking cessation, but they had these lifestyle ads appealing to youth.
There was a quick response by ministerial order, but that authority from the ministerial order, which exists for the Food and Drugs Act, in part, does not exist in the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act. That could be an amendment to the TVPA that could really enhance and provide a more robust, quick process in terms of dealing with marketplace developments.
Senator Martin: That’s a good one. That’s important.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senators, this brings us to the end of the first panel. I’d like to thank the witnesses today for your testimony.
Joining us for this panel, from the Canadian Vaping Association, we welcome Daniel David, Vice-President. And from Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., we welcome Pascal Michel, Director of Scientific Engagement, and Danny Fournier, Director of Illicit Trade Prevention. Thank you for joining us today.
For your opening remarks, you have five minutes, which will be followed by questions from committee members.
Mr. David, the floor is yours.
Daniel David, Vice-President, Canadian Vaping Association: Thank you, Madam Chair and honourable senators. My name is Daniel David. I am the Vice-President of the Canadian Vaping Association, or CVA, which represents the legal and independent vaping industry across the country. Thank you for inviting us to comment specifically on the proposal in Division 12, which is to change the review period under the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act from two years to five years.
I will be direct about our position: The CVA recommends at this time that the existing two-year review period be maintained and that it not be extended to five years. I will give you three reasons.
First, the regulatory framework under the act is still being actively built. Three regulatory initiatives currently sit on Health Canada’s Forward Regulatory Plan: 2026-2028. The first is age verification for online sales. These proposed regulations are expected this fall in Canada Gazette Part I. These could further reduce youth access to vaping products purchased online, which is a central objective of the act.
The second is an order amending the schedules of the act dealing with flavours, together with the proposed Standards for Vaping Products’ Sensory Attributes Regulations. These were published in June 2021. Our association has advocated strongly against this approach, but the government continues to face pressure to approve them, and they remain on the current forward regulatory plan. If these or similar measures were approved, the impacts on the legislation, the industry, the consumers and the enforcement landscape would be dramatic and immediate.
The third piece is the consolidation of the tobacco and vaping products reporting, which is also expected this fall. These regulations could improve the quality of the information Health Canada collects and help inform them regarding the policies intended to reduce tobacco use in Canada.
Each of these connects directly to the act and its stated goals. If regulations of this consequence come into force, their impact and their efficacy should be reviewed more frequently, not less. Under a five-year cycle, all three could be made, implemented and produce years of consequences before Parliament next examines whether the act is achieving what it set out to achieve.
The second reason is that the enforcement and compliance landscape is changing. The most recent review and consultation focused on enforcement challenges and practical ways to address them. That process was valuable for both government and industry. However, enforcement conditions continue to evolve, the illicit market has grown into a serious concern, and compliance challenges remain. The review is a key mechanism for bringing these realities before decision-makers. A two-year interval keeps that conversation current.
The third reason is that this is a young industry, and the evidence moves quickly. Vaping has been federally regulated for only eight years. In that time, it has been through three TVPA reviews, four major regulatory changes and other federal legislation, such as excise taxation, which does also impact the outcomes of the TVPA.
Additionally, a substantial volume of new research, surveys and data becomes available in any two-year period, and much of it speaks directly to the objectives of this act. The most recent government surveys show continued declines in youth vaping and smoking rates. That’s good; it’s a good indication that it’s working. However, national surveys also show that nearly four in five adult smokers are misinformed about the relative harm of vaping compared to smoking. That is a problem, as adult smokers are the vaping products’ target market.
Regular reviews ensure that the impact and efficacy of new regulations are evaluated and that research and public consultation reach decision makers while they are still current.
In closing, this review is a scheduled check on whether the act is working as intended, and, where it is not, it is an early opportunity to correct course.
While it is true that Health Canada does not require these reviews to adjust policy, they are important opportunities for the public and stakeholders to engage in the process. In our view, the last three reviews and consultations conducted by Health Canada have been valuable and productive. They have strengthened the government’s understanding of this file, and they have given the public a regular and predictable opportunity to be heard.
Therefore, we would ask this committee to recommend that the two-year review period under the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act be maintained for now.
Thank you. I welcome your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. David. Mr. Michel, you have the floor.
[Translation]
Pascal Michel, Director, Scientific Engagement, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc.: Madam Chair and honourable senators, thank you for the invitation to appear before you today.
[English]
My name is Pascal Michel. My perspective today is informed by more than 20 years of experience in public health and scientific leadership at the national and international levels. Before joining Rothmans, Benson & Hedges, or RBH, as Director of Scientific Engagement, I served as Director and later Chief Science Officer at the Public Health Agency of Canada for many years. My colleague, Danny Fournier, who is the Director of Illicit Trade Prevention, is with me today. Together, we will be quite happy to answer any questions you may have.
When the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act was introduced — as I remember very well — it sought to protect youth and non-users from nicotine initiation while establishing a framework that could provide adult smokers with access to less harmful alternatives. In my view, maintaining this balance remains fundamental to both the act and its implementation, and there are changes required to ensure this collective goal is met.
Canada has made substantial progress in reducing smoking prevalence through sustained public policy, public health actions, community leadership, innovation and changes in individual behaviour. Yet, what brought us this far will likely not be sufficient to achieve Canada’s 2035 objective of reducing the smoking rate to less than 5%. Smoking remains a leading cause of preventable disease and death, particularly among populations facing significant socio-economic challenges. Within these populations, smoking prevalence is often two to more than four times higher than the national average.
If we are serious about reaching Canada’s objective, we must focus greater attention on those who continue to bear the greatest burden of smoking-related disease. The work is not finished, and emerging challenges, including the growth of illicit markets, require continued vigilance. With the adoption of a five-year review cycle, our attention should, therefore, focus on ensuring that the act remains responsive to the fast-evolving tobacco and nicotine environment.
Three priorities for implementation should be put into action.
First, take strong action at a national level to tackle the growth of the illicit tobacco and nicotine market. Illicit and, now, counterfeit products can circumvent age restrictions, product standards, health warnings and taxation measures. As online sales channels and cross-border supply networks continue to evolve, Canada would benefit from regular public reporting on illicit market trends and enforcement outcomes.
With credible third-party assessments pointing to some regions of our country, facing 30% to 50% illicit market penetration, there is a pressing need to address this growing threat. The widespread availability of illicit and counterfeit products seriously compromises the effectiveness of public health measures designed to reduce smoking and protect youth.
Second, allow scientific evidence to inform public understanding of product risks. The TVPA rightly seeks to prevent misleading promotions. At the same time, scientific knowledge continues to evolve at a very fast pace. As new evidence emerges, there should be mechanisms to periodically assess whether Canadians are receiving accurate and evidence-based information regarding the relative risks of authorized nicotine products, particularly adults who continue to smoke. There’s no doubt these adults would benefit from a clearer understanding of the available options.
Third, update Canada’s regulatory approach so that it is proportionate to risk and reflects evolving evidence. Underage protection must remain paramount, and no nicotine product is risk-free. However, products with different risk profiles should be assessed and regulated accordingly.
Countries such as Sweden, Japan and New Zealand have demonstrated that it is possible to maintain ambitious tobacco-control objectives while adopting approaches that accelerate declines in smoking prevalence. A modern framework should distinguish between combustible tobacco and non-combustible alternatives while maintaining rigorous standards across all product categories.
Honourable senators, the ultimate measure of success will be whether fewer Canadians suffer from smoking-related diseases in the years ahead. By remaining adaptive, evidence-informed and responsive to emerging challenges, including illicit markets, Canada can continue advancing its public health objectives.
Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Michel. We will now proceed with questions from committee members. For this panel, senators will have five minutes for your question, and that includes the answer. Please indicate if your question is directed to a particular witness or witnesses.
Senator Martin: Thank you very much for your testimonies this morning. Both of you mentioned the concern of the growth of the illicit market for both vaping and cigarette products. My first question is to Mr. David. Is the illicit vaping market equally concerning and growing at a rate similar to tobacco products?
Mr. David: The illicit vaping market is actually growing quite quickly. Unfortunately, there have been a lot of regulatory changes, and sometimes what that does is it creates some enforcement gaps. One of the challenges that we see is a lot of illicit vaping products that come up from the United States. These are unregulated, so they are not taxed, their ingredients aren’t reported, and their packaging can have all sorts of different things on it. In Canada, we very closely regulate our packaging, our ingredients and what goes on those packages. It is starting to become a big problem.
Attached to that is also the excise taxation for vaping products, which is exceptionally high. This creates a price difference and an opportunity for the illicit market — organized crime — to get involved. So there’s a lot of motivation there. One of the challenges for the government, on the enforcement side, is to ensure that the legal industry is protected and we’re stopping these bad actors and illicit products from coming into Canada.
Senator Martin: You mentioned that you would like to see the two-year review remain versus an increase to five years. On the enforcement issue and the challenges, you feel those are important concerns that, if we were to do it every five years, we wouldn’t be responding to the issues that are growing. You listed several reasons why you support it being maintained every two years.
Mr. David: I think that is part of it. The review process isn’t the be all, end all. There’s consultation and engagement with the government on enforcement throughout the period without review. It’s an additional mechanism that we do find quite important, especially with the last review, which was the third one. It did focus particularly on enforcement-related issues. We found that it was very helpful, both for our side and for the government, to provide feedback. But it’s not the only mechanism. There is ongoing work that’s done at the same time. It’s just our preference that, with so many changes happening both with the products and the illicit market and regulations, it is wise to maintain the current two-year review, at least at this stage.
Senator Martin: To the representatives of Rothmans, Benson & Hedges, did you say that you would like to see the review remain at two years versus five years? I don’t know if I heard you specifically say that.
Mr. Michel: Thank you for the opportunity to clarify. To be clear, we’re not happy with moving from two to five years either. We are concerned that the environment is moving too fast for the accountability that is necessary at this point. However, if a longer period is about to happen, we would ask, as a recommendation, to have a midpoint review and, certainly, triggers so that we can have accountability at the right time.
One of the main points of our intervention today — I hope the committee will take full appreciation of it — is that the illicit market is real and really fast-moving. I have with me a national expert in this domain. It may not be as known as we appreciate. Before passing the microphone to my colleague, I just want to impress on the committee the fact that illicit trade is a public health threat. I saw with interest all of you talking about youth protection, and this is the angle by which we’re approaching it.
Danny Fournier, Director, Illicit Trade Prevention, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc.: Thank you. To answer your question, there are two things. From a corporate perspective, I think Pascal Michel stated our position: Five years is way too long.
From an enforcement perspective, if you didn’t know, I have a law enforcement background. I ran operations with the Quebec provincial police with the contraband tobacco enforcement unit. From an enforcement perspective, two years or five years is not that big a factor. They have all the tools they need now to enforce it. We’re lacking priority and resources. That’s when it comes to traditional contraband. If you move this topic online, we are far behind, and I’m afraid we cannot enforce our way out of online illicit trade at this stage, with the actual landscape we have. We’re in a tough position when it comes to online enforcement. It’s still feasible, maybe, with physical, traditional-distribution illicit chains, but online, I think we’ve unfortunately missed that boat.
Senator Senior: Thank you all for being here today.
I’m curious: Were you consulted by Health Canada on this change for Bill C-31?
Mr. David: We were not consulted, no.
Mr. Michel: We were not consulted, to my knowledge, either. Thank you.
Senator Senior: It seems from your testimony that you are very concerned about the illicit market. I’m curious about the impact of the illicit market on your business.
Mr. David: It’s actually quite significant on the legal industry. Our association represents the legal industry. What the illicit market does is it brings in products that have extremely high nicotine, so it makes them more addictive. Also, the products they bring in don’t go through ingredient reporting and all the regulatory hurdles that legal products do, so they don’t have that cost burden. Additionally, they aren’t taxed. They don’t have their excise tax.
From the perspective of the impact on the industry, these products outcompete all of the legal products that are on the market. The more that the illicit market grows and captures market share, the bigger that impact becomes. It has been growing for some time, but it has been accelerating recently and has had a substantial impact on our members’ businesses.
Mr. Michel: Thank you for the opportunity. Our business is transforming super fast as we are moving away from cigarettes. The concern we have, as I stated, is if we are losing the credibility of the products with the reasonable protections we can have on those products. This loss of credibility is huge when we look at the illicit market.
In previous communication, there was a slight distinction between the regulated industry and some of the examples that have been brought up with regard to illicit products. This has a tremendous impact on the credibility of our business. Some of you may find it strange, but we are quite aligned with public health guidelines to gain the credibility needed for smoke-free products to be sustainable in the future.
Mr. Fournier: When it comes to the illicit market, the chances of us — us meaning both the government and the private industry — succeeding if we cannot reach 50% of the market because it’s illicit . . . New Brunswick is close to that bar, and Ontario is certainly at that bar. How do we reach 50% of consumers if they consume only illicit products? I’m afraid I don’t have the answer to that question.
I heard earlier today that nicotine pouches went behind the counter. They did not. Only one brand did. The 15 other illicit brands are still readily available in retail — at independent stores, mostly. Legitimate large chains would not carry those, but the vast majority of nicotine pouches are readily available at legitimate retailers. It’s the same thing online but times three or four, probably, so this is a huge issue from this perspective.
Senator Senior: Thank you, Mr. Fournier, for mentioning what you heard on the other panel because my other question was if there’s anything that you heard on the previous panel that you would challenge.
Mr. Fournier: Politely put, I think I just did. One brand moved.
If we go to other brands, Philip Morris does manufacture one brand of pouch, which is super popular around the world and in the U.S.A., called ZYN. I think I might have a counterfeit brand in my bag. I could show you after this is over to educate people around the table. ZYN is not authorized for sale in Canada and is not a commercial product in Canada. The vast majority of ZYN we find are counterfeit brands from China. It’s not our brand. It has our brand name, but they have crazy flavour names and variants. That’s why it is so easy to tell them apart from our products. When you see these crazy names, you know we don’t manufacture those. That’s one thing.
I support law enforcement, if not on a daily basis, on a weekly basis. The last interventions with the CBSA, RCMP and AGLC, or Alberta Gaming, Liquor & Cannabis, when it came to ZYN seizures were interventions at retailers or at the border; they were all counterfeit, 100%. I’m not saying there is no diversion from the legitimate U.S. market that makes its way to Canada, but organized crime seized the opportunity. They saw the gap in regulation and enforcement capacities. We have a solution for that. I’m not sure we have time to discuss it, but we do have some solutions for that, which, unfortunately, have not been considered by law enforcement, except for one agency.
[Translation]
Senator Boudreau: Thank you to our guests for being here today.
I’m a little confused this morning. We have heard both sides on this issue, and neither side has been consulted by the government. Both sides prefer that the review remain every two years. So I’d like to see the Health Canada people here again to ask them more questions. It seems to be coming from them and no one else.
[English]
I would like to hear from the Canadian Vaping Association. One thing you said struck me. That was that your association would be against banning flavours. I would be curious to hear your rationale for that, considering everything that we have heard to date about flavoured products.
Mr. David: We have looked at this for quite some time. There are a lot of reasons for that position. The unintended consequences that result from trying to ban flavours come down to one major point. The legal age-restricted vaping industry is the best and first line of defence against youth access. Having retailers that have age-restricted legal products that have their promotions restricted — they are not allowed to be called candy and are not allowed to be promoted. These are legal products; they present an important line of defence for youth.
When you look at banning flavours, that represents 70% to 90% of the entire category. It is a critical part. The legal industry doesn’t survive that. What will end up happening is that you will shift the demand for those products, which does exist — there are 1.9 million adult vapers in Canada, most of whom use flavours — to an illicit source. They will still get access to it. We have seen this in provinces that have banned flavours. It is not effective. There is an idea that by banning flavours, you are going to somehow protect youth from their appeal. Unfortunately, we see this massive growth in the illicit market, making the products just as, if not more, available because the legal industry, then, contracts.
However, even in the youth survey numbers, we don’t see, after a flavour ban, this falling off the cliff of rates of youth use. Even in the Canadian Health Survey on Children and Youth, New Brunswick was actually the only province that saw an increase in youth use between 2023 and 2024. It was very small, but the survey tracking the data from 2019 indicated that the rate of youth use in New Brunswick was 16.3% and went all the way down to 7% in 2023, and then increased to 7.2% after a flavour ban.
In Quebec, we also see that youth use steadily declined, just like we see across most of Canada. It is a pretty steady decline. At worst, it’s stable. There is a steady decline in youth use. The provinces that don’t have flavour bans, with the data that we have now, tend to actually perform better. For example, Ontario has a rate of youth use of 4.5%, whereas Quebec, where we have a flavour ban, is 9.2%.
There are a lot of reasons why we’re opposed to a flavour ban. Again, it would devastate the industry, and the industry employs 10,000 Canadians across the country. It’s an independent and legal industry. But banning flavours does not work, and it has severe unintended consequences with regard to the illicit market, which we already have a considerable problem with. It would cripple the legal industry.
I have one other point. This ban would also leave behind adult smokers who rely on flavours to stay off of cigarettes, and I’m actually one of them. I’m a former smoker who switched to vaping, and I rely on flavours. It is often forgotten that there are so many adult vapers who have used the product to stay off cigarettes, and they use flavours. What happens to them? They’ll either go back to smoking or go to the illicit market and find it easily online somewhere. That’s an unregulated product. Sometimes, they get left behind.
Senator Boudreau: Thank you for that. For the record, I’m still in favour of banning the flavours.
[Translation]
I have a quick question for Mr. Fournier.
Who is ultimately responsible for enforcing these laws on the ground? Is it the responsibility of the RCMP or someone else? When you talk about illicit products that are openly available and accessible to our youth, who is ultimately responsible for that?
Mr. Fournier: Unfortunately, all of the disparate regulatory measures were copied over. There are federal statutes that apply, including the Excise Act, 2001, which is generally enforced by the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency. In addition, each province has its own tobacco tax legislation, giving rise to related provincial offences. The result is a patchwork of solutions and enforcement measures.
Again, the necessary enforcement tools already exist. What is mainly lacking are the resources and the necessary prioritization. When we talk about online trafficking, I’m not blaming law enforcement agencies. The policing model was not created to address online crime. We have been relatively successful in addressing child pornography and protecting children, but that’s about it. There is no sustained police presence online to detect drug and weapons trafficking.
I’m not talking about going onto the dark web or other hidden networks, but simply the open internet. If we’re talking about consumer products such as vaping products, e-cigarettes or nicotine pouches, there is no police presence. It’s a patchwork approach to enforcement. The tools are there for law enforcement. What’s lacking is the necessary resources.
[English]
Senator Muggli: I’ll start with Mr. David. I’m curious: Do you have any knowledge of the per cent of youth who vape who use contraband products? Since it is illegal for them to be doing it in the first place, I’m guessing it will be high.
Mr. David: What I can say is that the most common source for youth of vaping products is social sourcing. That means that an older brother, a family member or an older friend legally purchases the product from a retail shop and then provides it to them.
Of course, there is an aspect of supply directly from the illicit market, particularly when it comes to online social media sites. I don’t know a number that I could give you that specifically states that of the youth who do use vaping products, how much of that is illicit. I couldn’t give that to you.
But, yes, I know that they are supplied from that illicit channel, and that channel does flood the market with those illicit products and makes them available, in large part through social media chat systems like WhatsApp and various tools that way.
Senator Muggli: In relation to the time frame for reviewing the legislation — two years or five years — do you have opportunities to contribute your issues, concerns or even ideas to Health Canada between reviews, as it stands now?
Mr. David: We definitely do. We make a point of reaching out to Health Canada on a quarterly basis to provide them updates on what’s going on in the industry and some of the things that we see and also to talk about certain priorities — things like informing adult smokers about the harm reduction value of vaping products, but also other issues that are enforcement-related or flavours and various things. We do that on a regular basis anyways.
Senator Muggli: Have you seen actions taken as a result of the feedback provided?
Mr. David: In fact, I like to think that we have. I will give you one example.
One of the things I mentioned in my speech was enforcement challenges. With the TVPA, some of the aspects in there are fairly interpretive. They are not exact, especially when it comes down to flavour names, but also in various areas. For some time, we have been pushing Health Canada to provide some more clarity and some guidance. Just recently, they had provided a draft. They provided it to us, and we consulted with them on it, and they have released guidance to help the industry improve compliance on that aspect.
Senator Muggli: So it doesn’t matter if it is two or five years?
Mr. David: Well, we would still continue to do that work, for sure.
For us, what matters between the two and five years is that it is an important mechanism where they provide questions. We actually do a deep dive, like we did with enforcement, but it is also public. It is not just us. It includes a lot of important stakeholders, including consumers. The adult consumers who use these products are important ones to include in that as well. That’s why we believe that it’s important to continue.
Senator Muggli: Mr. Michel or Mr. Fournier, do you want to add anything? I don’t know how much time is left.
Mr. Michel: I like the line of questioning here that the reaction and real action from Health Canada are actually more important than the time period in itself, and that is exactly our position.
In the last review, we were eager to see actions, and when we do talk to them and raise tangible issues that we see in the field, they seem to be quite passive about it, and we haven’t seen any other results.
I was talking about the real outcome there. The real outcome is protecting the youth and making sure that the legislation has its objectives. Our position was we would prefer two years, but we would prefer any time period by which we ensure there is accountability and there is action linked to the need there.
Back to the illicit market, we do need action on illicit, regardless of the time period. Thank you.
Senator Arnold: My question is very related to that, and, Mr. Michel, you said that Health Canada is passive about it.
Mr. Fournier, you said earlier that you had solutions to illicit markets and that you could expand on that, and I’m just concerned about that. If you have some solutions, and they are passive to the solutions, I would like to hear what some of those might be.
Mr. Fournier: I have the luxury of having an easier position than Pascal Michel when it comes to enforcement. The luxury lies in that I do not have to conduct studies. I identify a problem — I did online and took action swiftly. Fortunately enough, the company believed in it. To give you a few numbers I have off the top of my head when it comes to contraband cigarettes, we have removed in the past couple of years over 30,000 ads on either social media, online sales platforms or websites.
Nicotine pouches, since late 2024 — roughly a year and a half ago — we have removed over 32,000 ads. Mind you, all these ads are distributors and vendors operating illegally. They are outside the legitimate network.
Why did we do this? Because law enforcement — again, this is not a criticism — don’t have the resources to do that for different technical reasons. It is much more difficult to tackle an online criminal investigation than a physical one.
Our approach is about interdiction. What is the difference between interdiction and enforcement? Interdiction may lead to an arrest and accusation, but it may not. It aims at stopping the infraction, whereas law enforcement aims at stopping, arresting someone, charging them and going to court. With 30,000 ads in a year and a half, there is no way. It is not humanly possible for any of them.
The solution we came up with is interdiction, which was not an easy sales pitch to go to police and law enforcement with. However, the Sûreté du Québec, or SQ, signed a memorandum of understanding with RBH, where we do that interdiction for them, and we report on a monthly basis for them, and we share the report with five or six other police agencies across the country. It gives them visibility on new trends and on something which they do not have the resources to tackle.
They may word it in a more polite way than this, but we already had the solution in place when they saw this. “You know, it goes against the grain here; we’re supposed to arrest people.” I said, “Humbly, there is no way you can; it’s not possible.” Not for that market, and it’s probably in Ontario, also.
That’s a super-effective solution we found. It’s not a perfect one, but at least I get the luxury of skipping the study part and moving to action right away. It works for us now.
And, again, to Pascal Michel’s point, the main issue is public health, in the end. It is organized crime; don’t get me wrong. These are criminal organizations, and some of them are serious and dangerous ones. In the end, it is a public health issue — a huge public health issue.
Senator Arnold: That is a bit of a whack-a-mole.
Mr. Fournier: It is. That’s the title of our presentation that we did yesterday, actually, at a conference.
Senator Arnold: Thank you.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you for your very clear answer. We came in with the two years and the five years, so it is a good start when we have clear answers on that from you and the previous panel.
I have just a quick question. It came from listening to you, Mr. David. For those reports and those examples, do you think that we do enough study and data collection when it comes to — the goal of the bill at the time was to help smoking adults quit. I remember we were talking about smoking and vaping and, ideally, quitting everything.
I realized when I was reading the report that we spent — rightly so — a lot of time thinking about the harm to youth and non-smoking adults starting vaping. How important is it or how good are we on tracking what the goal was?
Mr. David: That is an important question, actually, and, to be clear, we’re not very good. We have lost that aspect.
I was at the Senate for Bill S-5 when it was created, and the purpose of that bill was quite clear, and part of it was providing a regulated, legal product to adults for harm reduction, and it still is. But it is the adults that often get left behind in the argument with youth.
Of course, we need to protect youth. I’m a father. I have two kids. Absolutely, and there are good ways to do that, but it constantly overshadows the aspect that vaping is a harm-reduction product. It is proven. There is no question that switching completely to vaping is significantly less harmful than continuing to smoke.
But the numbers, the research and the data that we collect on that are constantly left behind. Even when I reference that nearly four out of five adult smokers don’t understand that vaping is a less harmful product — we got those numbers in 2022, the CTNS data — there is not a particular push to collect more data and do something about it. There are clear things that we can do.
One of the proposals that we have presented to the government in the past was to use the mechanisms of cigarette packages just to say, “Hey, vaping products are less harmful, or alternative nicotine products are less harmful than continuing to smoke if you can’t quit using approved methods.” This goes right to the target audience, which is an adult smoker. They are the ones that are left behind, and it is hard to collect data when they are being left out.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you. What we sometimes hear is that the results are not that conclusive when it comes to moving from smoking to vaping to quitting. So do you think that it is because maybe we don’t do enough to really help, like we did at the beginning? We thought that this will help smoking adults quit. How does that work? Do we have a system that really helps us achieve that goal?
Mr. David: There is not a lot of data from the government out there tracking what our progress is on what has helped. On the survey and government side, we don’t have a lot.
On the academic and scientific side, we actually do have considerable data that demonstrates that nicotine vaping products are very effective. In fact, there was a Cochrane study that was just released a month ago or so which reviewed 80 high-quality studies around the world for high-certainty evidence that vaping products are actually more effective than nicotine replacement therapy, or NRT, products in helping users switch.
We do know from some government data — I think the number was recently in Canada’s Delivering Results report — that 21% of Canadians who successfully quit smoking did so with the help of a nicotine vaping product. We do have some government information like that, but we definitely need to focus more on tracking what that impact is and actioning it.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We are going to pass to Senator Senior for the second round.
Senator Senior: This is a question to Mr. David and Mr. Michel. Do you fund research through partnerships with research bodies, universities or any academic institutions?
Mr. David: We don’t fund anything like that. Honestly, we would love to if we had the resources to do so, but anytime we get involved with some of those types of things, it tends to put a negative spin on it and impact the credibility of some work because then it might be seen as the industry engaging. We look at the science quite a lot, and we rely on it a lot. We do tend to prefer when it is organic. When research is being done, we look at that.
Senator Senior: Thank you.
Mr. Michel: Yes, absolutely, but we do also fund some research. Our company is affiliated with Philip Morris International. In order to transform the company completely, we heavily invested in science for the transition to be based on science. To date, we have got more than 550 peer-reviewed publications in the open. So we have an open-science policy so people can actually see this.
I do appreciate Mr. David’s comment, though. There are independent studies that are also very powerful when we do engage. But we do our own research in areas in which some independent researchers might not. We do propose that for people.
The Chair: Thank you. This brings us to the end of this portion of our meeting. I would like to thank the witnesses for your testimony today and for being with us.
We will suspend briefly and then resume in camera to discuss drafting instructions for our report on the subject matter of Bill C-31. At this time, I ask any members of the public to please leave us. Thank you.
(The committee continued in camera.)