HEAL Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON HEALTH

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA SANTÉ

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, June 7, 2000

[Editor's Note: Proceedings commence in camera]

• 1250

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.)): We'll take questions to Health Canada.

Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Basically I'd just like to come back to the printing aspects of it. That seems to be the issue for a lot of the people we've heard. Again, we have two processes and we've heard all about that. You're fairly convinced they can print these in Canada, keep the jobs here, and go ahead as proposed?

Dr. Gillian Lynch (Director General, Bureau of Tobacco Control, Department of Health Canada): I believe so. I'd like Ms. Meyboom to answer that question, please.

Ms. Jane Meyboom (Associate Director General, Bureau of Tobacco Control, Department of Health Canada): The proposed regulations don't require tobacco companies to alter their trademark colours. Tobacco companies have the flexibility to achieve their trademark colours by a variety of processes. As mentioned in the legal opinion provided to this committee, those processes are not part of their trademarks. So given today's sophisticated colour management systems, our experts who have advised us, plus the testimony from the printers you heard last week, indicate they are fully capable of producing both a four-colour health warning message on the tobacco packages and protecting their brand colours.

Mr. Bob Mills: How real is the chance that they will really promote soft packages for that notice inside? It would seem to me it wouldn't be that hard to convince consumers that they like the soft packages as opposed to the hard ones.

Ms. Jean Meyboom: It is our view that Canadians tend to like their cigarettes in the packages they're used to. Hard packages tend to preserve the cigarettes, tend not to crush them, and they have a tradition of having these packages.

But one of the things that are important to our reporting regulations is that we will be able to track that, because one of the things we ask for in the reporting regulations is that they have to report by brand and by type of package. So very quickly in our sales reports and in our manufacturing reports we will learn if they do that, and then we could take steps, if necessary, to address that situation.

Mr. Bob Mills: If a number is put inside—you need help, you are addicted—is that help number a real number, and would there be people there manning it who know how to deal with that? How would that work?

Ms. Jane Meyboom: What we have is a website, www.infotobacco, and on that website will be information. We have information on the medical facts of quitting smoking right now, and we will be continuing to develop that website with quit information.

Mr. Bob Mills: So there would be somewhere to go if you had a problem?

Ms. Jane Meyboom: Yes.

Mr. Bob Mills: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): What kind of information are you seeking from manufacturers? Why do you want information about inventories?

Secondly, why are soft packs exempted? What is the rationale for this decision on the part of Health Canada?

Thirdly, you have rejected some of the print processes submitted by printers. I'd like you to share with us your reasons for rejecting these processes.

Fourthly, is Health Canada currently pursuing any research initiatives?

[English]

Ms. Jane Meyboom: Thank you very much, Mr. Ménard.

There are a number of reasons we are asking for inventory. First, we are asking inventories by quarter, because that tells us where manufacturers and importers see their markets going. If tobacco companies start buying more tobacco for a particular brand, that will tell us their marketing intentions. As well, for small manufacturers and importers it will give us an indication of whether they are planning to introduce specialty products into the marketplace for particular kinds of consumers, and that means we can issue information letters to those consumers to indicate that these products are tobacco products and they are not safe.

Moreover, inventory can alert us to changes in manufacturing procedures. If, for example, there is more tobacco and they are planning to put more tobacco in cigarettes and make the tobacco products more toxic, that's important for us to know as well.

• 1255

The second question relates to soft packs. One of the most important issues for these regulations was to ensure that they were not only legally sound and scientifically valid but also technically feasible for the industry to implement. It is impossible to put a leaflet in this soft pack where a consumer could see it without obscuring the health warning messages or the toxic ingredients. If you put it in here, or in here, this is how you smoke a soft pack and the consumer would never seek the leaflet. Alternatively, you would have to put it here or here or here, and you'd either obscure their trademark or the health warning messages. In our view, it was just not possible to do this. However, the regulations do require that leaflets be put into cartons of soft packs.

The third issue you raised, Mr. Ménard, is why did we not accept the proposed two-colour health warning message proposals from the printers. All of our research says it is the graphic combined with the information that makes the greatest impact on the consumer, particularly for new Canadians. For people who are younger, it has 60 times more impact to not start smoking.

Colour counts—when you put only two colours you reduce the impact of the photograph significantly. Moreover, as I mentioned to you a few minutes ago with regard to the trademark issue, the trademark information tells you you cannot trademark a process by which you arrive at a colour. Consequently, tobacco printers do have the flexibility to produce both these four-colour warnings and the trademarks.

With regard to tobacco research, one of the important things in these reporting regulations is that it will give us information from the industry on all of the ingredients that go into their products. This is critical for us. As part of this, we will be continuing to develop studies on how we can possibly look at modifying the product to make a safer cigarette, and that will be one of the themes of our research. We have established an expert committee on nicotine and science, for example, which has conducted research on nicotine replacement therapies and is doing a report. We will be pursuing those kinds of research initiatives in the future.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mrs. Wasylycia-Leis.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Thank you. I have two areas I'd like to focus on. The first is the issue of impact on jobs. I appreciate the material that we were presented with. It seems to me, however, reading through all this material, that it's still very difficult to actually determine the long-term impact in terms of existing jobs and the industry in Canada today. I don't think we've actually addressed the broader topic of the printing industry in Canada and the precarious nature it is in, given the whole focus on world trade and the trade agreements.

So my concern still remains that we as a committee have to take some steps to ensure that jobs are protected as much as possible and that industry in Canada is protected as much as possible. I think it would be remiss of us if we ended up creating a situation where in fact, real or not, workers are left with this trade-off between health and their livelihoods.

I also raise this because if you look back, for example, to the Speech from the Throne, it clearly acknowledged big changes in different sectors in the economy and the need for government to be proactive with respect to the changing economy. I also look back to the fact that eight years ago there was a very lengthy study done on the commercial printing industry in Canada, in 1992, outlining the threats to the industry, the concern regarding competitiveness, emerging markets, technological changes, and the impact of trade agreements.

I guess my question is, would it not be in our best interests as a committee to ensure that we in this process call upon the government to take some responsibility to keep the industry in Canada and to protect jobs as much as possible, and actually put the onus on the government to take some responsibility for that through adjustment programs, through the transition fund, etc.?

• 1300

That's the first question. The second one has to do with the budget, and I have to say at the outset that I was very, very disappointed in the information we were provided with in response to my questions.

For the record, Mr. Chairperson—and this is not a criticism of the staff of the department; this is really more a question for you and for Liberal members around this table and the government—we are not getting the straight goods around a clear promise in the last election for a specific expenditure directed toward stopping smoking among young people. I want to read from the red book and then point out why I'm concerned.

I'll refer to page 77 of the red book, where it clearly said:

More intervention is needed at the community level to educate young people about the risks associated with smoking and to help deter smokers under the age of 19 who have tried quitting, to succeed in doing so.

A new Liberal government will double funding for the tobacco demand reduction strategy from $50 million to $100 million over 5 years, investing the additional funds in smoking prevention and cessation programs for young people to be delivered by community organizations that promote the health and wellbeing of Canadian children and youth.

I know from all my previous questioning that we've not gotten the information on that promise and how it has been lived up to. If I read this correctly, we're talking about $10 million a year—

The Chair: Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, may I interrupt for a minute?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Sure.

The Chair: That's more a political question and I take it very seriously. I think what we should do is ask the clerk to draft a letter to the Minister of Health asking precisely what you're asking.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Okay, but Mr. Chairperson, keep in mind this is the third time I've asked for this information through every available official avenue that is open to us as MPs.

The Chair: I understand.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: We're not getting the information, and I thought maybe through this process we would. What we're being told is that there's a total budget of $20 million a year for tobacco control—no acknowledgement that there was a specific additional promise that $10 million a year would be spent on community programs geared to young people. I would like at least an acknowledgement that that promise was made, and I would like some understanding... If it is the view of government that the money that will have to be expended in terms of these regulations is considered to be community-based youth smoking prevention programs, then I want to hear it. At least we'll know what we're dealing with and at least we'll be able to assess their promises in the future.

The Chair: I think it's a very good question, quite frankly. I think we should write the Minister of Health a letter and ask it.

If it's agreeable to everyone, we'll have a draft from the clerk, we'll circulate the draft, and maybe next week sometime we'll take a look at it further.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Then let me ask my second question to the departmental officials.

The Chair: Of course.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Has this promise been communicated to the department, and what's the plan of action?

The Chair: Dr. Lynch.

Dr. Gillian Lynch: I'll ask Ms. Meyboom to answer the first question.

Ms. Jane Meyboom: On adjustment.

Ms. Gillian Lynch: Yes.

Ms. Jane Meyboom: I think there are probably three points we want to make on the issue of employment adjustment. The first is that the objectives of the Tobacco Act are to protect people from the harm associated with tobacco products and to provide increased public awareness about the health hazards of tobacco use. With these health warning messages, we hope we will have an impact on reducing demand for tobacco products. The way we will do this is to provide more medical information to people so they will either be encouraged not to start or be encouraged to stop smoking.

That reduction in demand, we recognize, is not going to happen overnight. In fact, demand has been falling over the past twenty years and there has been ample time for the industry to adjust.

My statistics indicate that much of the job loss in the tobacco industry itself has mainly resulted from a decline in employment that comes from the introduction of new technology and productivity increases in the tobacco industry, rather than the specific initiatives directly of the government. And I think that's an important issue.

• 1305

Second, with regard to the immediate possible dislocation caused by whatever arrangements may be made between tobacco companies and their printers, once again I think the legal opinion provided to this committee is very clear: tobacco companies can trademark their colours but not their processes. What the tobacco industry chooses to do with its printers is... Once again, these regulations do not require the tobacco companies to change their trademarks. It will not be the decision of government to destroy jobs.

The Chair: Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Fair enough. But we can't look into the future and know exactly how this will play out. We don't know how the printing industry itself will respond. If there are multinational corporations involved, we don't know how they will respond. What I'm saying is, isn't it the job of government to take whatever proactive measures are available to be involved in whatever, protecting the industry here in Canada and/or putting in place transition programs and relocation programs, retraining programs, early retirement packages, and so on? That's been recommended in previous reports as a role of government.

The Chair: I think your point is made. I don't want to get into a debate here.

Are there other questions before we go in camera?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Is there an answer to the question on money?

The Chair: Dr. Lynch.

Dr. Gillian Lynch: I'll take that question.

First, we'd be pleased to reply to a letter and give you detail, if that is the way you wish to go, but in the meantime I would like to give you a little more information on what we have done, which I believe does address some of the issues you have raised.

As you know, we have $20 million a year. Within that budget we have put a lot of emphasis on youth in an integrated fashion. There have been initiatives we have taken that affect and, we believe, impact upon youth smoking. These are taken as part of an overall program. For example, enforcement—we put over $7 million a year into enforcing the prohibition of sales of tobacco to youth. That also includes a prevention and cessation component. We do a lot of work at public education with the retailers and with the youth who are found to be buying cigarettes, to ensure that they understand the law and that they understand the impacts of tobacco.

We have also brought in additional regulations called the access regulations. These were brought forward in 1999 and help to provide better information to retailers about sales to youth. We have set up the RYAT, the restricting youth access to tobacco program. This is intended to be accessed at the community level. It was started last year with a workshop that brought together health professionals from across the country to speak to how we can put in place effective programs addressed at restricting youth access to tobacco.

The media campaigns we have done amounted to $3 million last year. There was a major effort to ensure the media advertisements used were effective with youth, and youth were involved in the focus groups. We had two specific ads focused at youth, “Joy” and “Olivier”, but in addition, most of the other ads were found to be very effective with youth and were part of the process for deciding which ads would be used.

We developed a youth advisory committee last year, which is a committee of 17 youth from across the country aged 13 to 19. They have responsibility for advising the minister on effective ways of addressing youth and tobacco, recognizing that youth are the best advisers we can have.

We are funding CTUMS, which is a system for gathering data through a survey process. We survey every month to get information on the use of tobacco, with special emphasis on youth aged 15 to 24.

• 1310

Some specific programs we have done are the Quit 4 Life program, which provides a website, plus some information on CD disc. This is designed to assist youth in terms of understanding how to cease smoking, if they're smoking, and also to stop them from starting to smoke.

We had the health perspectives initiative, which was a youth prevention initiative providing information for youth on smoking. We have funded some community based programs, such as Acti-Menu in Quebec, whose main focus was on youth.

We have also trained trainers through the national training network, mostly health workers across the country, through ten to fifteen seminars on prevention and cessation, again with special emphasis on youth.

These are examples of some of the work we have been doing outside and in addition to the labelling and regulations. As you have heard, youth have been a major focus for us in setting up and developing those labels and regulations.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wish these regulations had been in effect 43 years ago. It might have kept me away from cigarettes for 33 or 34 years of my life.

A very quick question, a very quick answer. We've heard you say in the last few days—and I want you to confirm it—that you are not after the convenience stores in the sense that as long as they respect the law of not selling to minors, you are not out to cause them financial hardship. This is one of their concerns, and we all know that convenience stores do not play with millions. I simply want to hear from you that you're not after them. You don't want to cause them financial hardship. You're only trying to prevent harm and trying to help youth maintain their health.

Dr. Gillian Lynch: That is true, sir.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Karen Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Further to some of the questioning of Ms. Wasylycia-Leis—and I do believe Health Canada has every good intention in keeping young people off smoking—it seems to me that you're bringing in a multi-pronged approach, a large piece of which is enforcement.

The gentleman who represented the U.K. when we were in the Wellington Building mentioned that one of the reasons nobody objects to smoking cessation programs for young people is that they're really not that effective. I realize that Health Canada is trying to be involved in as effective a campaign as it can and that one of those prongs is a very legitimate expenditure in the enforcement of laws and regulations, because that is also key to keeping young people aware that there are regulations in place to protect them.

Dr. Gillian Lynch: Yes, that's correct, and that's why we focus on the enforcement program to the tune of over $7 million a year.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Chair, through you, perhaps I can go to Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, because I know this is something that Judy has been trying to get at.

Your interest is in finding out that that expenditure is made, not necessarily just on how, so it's quite legitimate that if Health Canada says part of those moneys are going toward enforcement, that answers your question.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Only in part. You see, in each and every year since this promise was made, we've put in, through Orders for Return, requests for a breakdown of the moneys specifically promised in the red book of 1997.

In the first year, the information the government gave us was that only $200,000 had been spent to meet that election commitment of prevention and cessation among young people. The latest return I have for most of 1999-2000 is that almost $4 million of that $10 million had been spent. As far as I'm concerned, we're still missing an expenditure of $9.2 million and a $6 million expenditure just to bring us up to the present state.

I think there are big holes in the information, or else this election promise was meant for no one to take seriously.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Regarding the ISO values and that predicament, to help me have a response to those who will ask, what is the straight answer as to why we can't agree on the basis for determination?

Ms. Jane Meyboom: Sir, I don't understand your question. Do you mean why are we putting two different data points on the packages?

Mr. Paul Szabo: Yes.

• 1315

Ms. Jane Meyboom: The reason is that we've established a standard in Canada that collects more smoke through a smoking machine and allows us to identify more closely the effect of tobacco smoke on the smoker. But there is an ISO standard, and we need to put both on the package in order to ensure that we don't mislead anyone into thinking that Canadian cigarettes are more toxic.

Mr. Paul Szabo: My understanding is that the lower values are promoted or used by the industry and that the methodology of measurement for the higher number is an attempt to get a more accurate reading. But the concern is that the presentation of two numbers would indicate that it somehow defines a range, when in fact it actually is a disagreement in the methodology for determining a point or a standard.

Ms. Jane Meyboom: This is a step along the way toward identifying further the impact of smoking on the human body. Right now we have two data points. The way we can do that to make sure we do not mislead consumers is to give them the best information we have in terms of both the lower end of the range and the higher end of the range.

Mr. Paul Szabo: But the assumption is that if you have two points, you have the upper and the lower, when in fact if the Health Canada number is a best guess, a range would in fact surround the Health Canada number, not necessarily be something lower itself or something lower... It could be a higher number. Because there's a tolerance of measurement, there must be plus or minus accuracy. So we're actually defining or implying that there's a range, when in fact that range could be from a higher number to something in the middle of the two, down to a lower number than either of the two, to the middle of the two.

In talking about this, I think the real question is, how is it that we have been unable to come up with an agreement on something that we say is an International Organization for Standardization... that they can't agree on the basis for determination of a value? Who's in charge of this stuff?

Ms. Jane Meyboom: There are international committees now that are continuing to work on this, and Health Canada is participating in these international committees that look at this.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Is the information on the side of the package, which shows the amount of tar, other ingredients, and all this other stuff, prescribed by Health Canada, or is that at the discretion of the tobacco industry?

Ms. Jane Meyboom: It's prescribed by Health Canada.

Mr. Paul Szabo: So the question then becomes why doesn't Health Canada prescribe what it believes to be the correct ISO number?

Ms. Jane Meyboom: These are the two pieces of information we have for the technology and information we possess. This is the best we can do at the time.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Thank you.

The Chair: Are there any other questions?

Okay. Now we'll clear the room.

[Editor's Note: Proceedings continue in camera]