Manitoba Committee Hansard — Justice Committee, Sitting 2 (40th Legislature, 3rd Session)

40-3-ju2

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Third Session - Fortieth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Standing Committee on Justice Chairperson Mr. Bidhu Jha Constituency of Radisson Vol. LXVI No. 2 - 6 p.m., Tuesday, June 3, 2014 ISSN 1708-6671

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Fortieth Legislature Member Constituency Political Affiliation ALLAN, Nancy St. Vital NDP ALLUM, James, Hon. Fort Garry-Riverview NDP ALTEMEYER, Rob Wolseley NDP ASHTON, Steve, Hon. Thompson NDP BJORNSON, Peter, Hon. Gimli NDP BLADY, Sharon, Hon. Kirkfield Park NDP BRAUN, Erna, Hon. Rossmere NDP BRIESE, Stuart Agassiz PC CALDWELL, Drew Brandon East NDP CHIEF, Kevin, Hon. Point Douglas NDP CHOMIAK, Dave, Hon. Kildonan NDP CROTHERS, Deanne St.

James NDP CULLEN, Cliff Spruce Woods PC DEWAR, Gregory Selkirk NDP DRIEDGER, Myrna Charleswood PC EICHLER, Ralph Lakeside PC EWASKO, Wayne Lac du Bonnet PC FRIESEN, Cameron Morden-Winkler PC GAUDREAU, Dave St. Norbert NDP GERRARD, Jon, Hon. River Heights Liberal GOERTZEN, Kelvin Steinbach PC GRAYDON, Cliff Emerson PC HELWER, Reg Brandon West PC HOWARD, Jennifer, Hon. Fort Rouge NDP IRVIN-ROSS, Kerri, Hon. Fort Richmond NDP JHA, Bidhu Radisson NDP KOSTYSHYN, Ron, Hon. Swan River NDP LEMIEUX, Ron, Hon. Dawson Trail NDP MACKINTOSH, Gord, Hon. St. Johns NDP MALOWAY, Jim Elmwood NDP MARCELINO, Flor, Hon.

Logan NDP MARCELINO, Ted Tyndall Park NDP MARTIN, Shannon Morris PC MELNICK, Christine Riel Ind. MITCHELSON, Bonnie River East PC NEVAKSHONOFF, Tom Interlake NDP OSWALD, Theresa, Hon. Seine River NDP PALLISTER, Brian Fort Whyte PC PEDERSEN, Blaine Midland PC PETTERSEN, Clarence Flin Flon NDP PIWNIUK, Doyle Arthur-Virden PC REID, Daryl, Hon. Transcona NDP ROBINSON, Eric, Hon. Kewatinook NDP RONDEAU, Jim Assiniboia NDP ROWAT, Leanne Riding Mountain PC SARAN, Mohinder The Maples NDP SCHULER, Ron St. Paul PC SELBY, Erin, Hon. Southdale NDP SELINGER, Greg, Hon. St.

Boniface NDP SMOOK, Dennis La Verendrye PC STEFANSON, Heather Tuxedo PC STRUTHERS, Stan, Hon. Dauphin NDP SWAN, Andrew, Hon. Minto NDP WIEBE, Matt Concordia NDP WIGHT, Melanie Burrows NDP WISHART, Ian Portage la Prairie PC Vacant The Pas

17 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE Tuesday, June 3, 2014 TIME – 6 p.m. LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Bidhu Jha (Radisson) VICE-CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Tom Nevakshonoff (Interlake) ATTENDANCE – 11 QUORUM – 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Mr. Allum, Hon. Ms. Blady, Hon. Mr. Swan Mr. Caldwell, Mrs. Driedger, Messrs. Goertzen, Graydon, Jha, Nevakshonoff, Pedersen, Ms. Wight APPEARING: Hon. Jon Gerrard, MLA for River Heights PUBLIC PRESENTERS: Bill 52 –The Non -Smokers Health Protection Amendment Act (Prohibitions on Flavoured Tobacco and Other Amendments) Ms.

Erin Crawford, Canadian Cancer Society, Manitoba Office Mr. Daniel More, Brigham Enterprises Mr. Mike Klander, Rothmans Benson & Hedges Mr. Rob Cunningham, Canadian Cancer Society, National Office Mr. Ken Guilford, private citizen Mr. Murray Gibson, MANTRA – Manitoba Tobacco Reduction Alliance Mr. Mel Hinds, private citizen Mr. Ken Dalton, Thomas Hinds Tobacconist Ltd. Ms. Margaret Bernhardt -Lowdon, Manitoba Lung Association Ms. Tessa Bortoluzzi, Ms. Erin Andrushuk, Ms. Hayley Ward, Ms. Ashpreet Ma an, Ms.

Marlies Morris, Manitoba SWAT – Students Working against Tobacco - (by leave) Bill 49 –The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act Mr. Ken Guilford, private citizen Mr. John McDonald, private citizen Bill 57 –The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Countermeasures Against Drug- Impaired Driving) Mr. Ken Guilford, private citizen Bill 60–The Restorative Justice Act Mr. Ken Guilford, private citizen Bill 66 –The Statutes Correction and Minor Amendments Act, 2014 Mr.

Ken Guilford, private citizen WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Bill 52 –The Non -Smokers Health Protection Amendment Act (Prohibitions on Flavoured Tobacco and Other Amendments) Luc Martial, Casa Cubana/Spike Marks Inc. John Fitzgerald, Imperial Tobacco Canada Andrew Klukas, Western Convenience Stores Association Glen Ross, Glen D. Ross Agencies Ltd.

Ruth Couldwell, private citizen Val Burgess, private citizen Harold Bidzinski, private citizen Jarred Skolnik, private citizen Ren Kumar, Shefield & Sons Tobacconists MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION: Bill 49 –The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act Bill 52 –The Non -Smokers Health Protection Amendment Act (Prohibitions on Flavoured Tobacco and Other Amendments) Bill 57 –The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Countermeasures Against Drug- Impaired Driving) Bill 60–The Restorative Justice Act Bill 66 –The Statutes Correction and Minor Amendments Act, 2014 * * *

18 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 3, 2014 Mr. Chairperson: Good evening. Will the Standing Committee on Justice please come to order. Our first item of business is the election of a Vice-Chairperson. Are there any nominations? Hon. Andrew Swan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I nominate Mr. Nevakshonoff. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Nevakshonoff has been nominated. Are there any other nominations? Hearing no other nominations, Mr. Nevakshonoff is elected as Vice-Chairperson.

The meeting has been called to consider the following bills: Bill 49, The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act ; Bill 52 , The Non-Smokers Health Protection Amendment Act (Prohibitions on Flavoured Tobacco and Other Amendments); Bill 57, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Countermeasures Against Drug-Impaired Driving) ; Bill 60, The Restorative Justice Act ; Bill 66, The Statutes Correction and Minor Amendments Act, 2014. How long does the committee wish to sit this evening? Mr. Swan: Until the work of the committee is done, Mr. Chairperson. Mr.

Chairperson: Agreed? [Agreed] We have a number of presenters registered to speak tonight as noted. The list of presenters are before you. And I like to particularly welcome the out-of-town presenters, na mely: Mr. Mike Klander, Mr. Rob Cunningham, Les Hagen and Daniel More. All of you are welcome here. And we will –the topic of the determining an order of public presentations, I will note that we have a number of out -of-town whom I have just acknowledged. With this consideration in mind, in what order does the committee wish to hear the presentations? Mr.

Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): I think that historically we hear the presenters in the order of out-of-town presenters first, and I think we should continue with that historical precedent, Mr. Chairperson. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you–Mr. Goertzen, sorry, I should amend that. Thank you. Before we proceed with the presentations, we do have a number of items and points of information to consider. First of all, if there is anyone else in the audience who would like to make a presentation this evening, please register with the staff at the entrance of the room.

Also, for the information of all presenters, while written versions of presentations are not requi red, if you are going to accompany your presentation with written materials, we ask you to provide 20 copies. If you need help with photocopying, please ask our staff. As well, I would like to inform presenters that in accordance with our rules, a time limit of 10 minutes has been allotted for presentations, with another five minutes allotted for questions from committee members.

Also, in accordance with our rules, if a presenter is not in attendance when their name is called, they will be dropped to the bottom of the list. If the presenter is not in attendance when their name is called the second time, they will be removed from the presenters' list. A number of written submissions on Bill 52 have been received and distributed for the committee's consideration. A list of individuals providing these submissions have also been distributed to the committee members.

To save the Chair having to read these names out, does the committee agree that the list of individuals providing submiss ions appear in Hansard? [Agreed] The following written submissions on Bill 52 have been received, by the people listed below: Luc Martial, Casa Cubana/Spike Marks Inc.; John Fitzgerald, Imperial Tobacco Canada; Andrew Klukas, Western Convenience Stores Association; Glen Ross, Glen D.

Ross Agencies Ltd.; Ruth Couldwell, Private Citizen; Val Burgess, Private Citizen; Harold Bidzinski, Private Citizen; Jarred Skolnik, Private Citizen; Ren Kumar, Shefield & Sons Tobacconists And does the committee further agree to have these submissions appear in the Hansard transcript of this meeting? [Agreed] Prior to proceeding with public presentations, I would like to advise members of the public regarding the process of speaking to the committee. The proceedings of our meetings are r ecorded in order to provide a verbatim transcript. Each time someone wishes to speak, whether it be an MLA or presenter,

June 3, 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 19 I first have to say the person's name. This is the signal for the Hansard recorder to turn the mi cs on and off. Thank you for your pa tience, and we will now proceed with the public presentations. * (18:10) Presenter No. 4 on Bill 52, Erin Crawford, is asking leave to present first for family reasons. She has a sick child home. Is there agreement of the committee to allow Ms. Crawford to go first? [Agreed] Also, one of the out-of-town presenters, No. 9 on your Bill 52 list, Mr.

Daniel More, has a plane to catch to return home and has asked to go right after the first. Is that agreed? [Agreed] Bill 52–The Non-Smokers Health Protection Amendment Act (Prohibitions on Flavoured Tobacco and Other Amendments) Mr. Chairperson: On Bill 52, I would now request Mr. Erin Crawford to come forward –Ms. Erin Crawford, I'm sorry. Now, Ms. Erin Crawford, do you have any written material for distribution to the committee? Ms. Erin Crawford (Canadian Cancer Society, Manitoba Office): Yes, I believe that's been distributed. Mr. Chairperson: Please proceed with your presentation. Ms.

Crawford: Thank you very much to the committee for hearing me tonight and for allowing me leave to go first. I'll be brief. Tobacco kills people . We know this. We have the opportunity to do something about it, and when we have the opportunity do something about it, we should. You have that chance here tonight and I hope that you will take it and that you will put forward the strongest legislation that it is in your power to do.

My colleague from the National Public Issues Office of the Canadian Cancer Society in Ottawa, Rob Cunningham, is here tonight, and I will let him speak in more detail to some of the reasons why we think that this is very important. But suffice it to say that too many Manitoba kids use tobacco, that too many Manitoba kids are using flavoured tobacco and that any time that we're making it easier or better or more enjoyable for kids to use tobacco, we're doing something wrong.

I hope that tonight this committee will think about that, will look at this legislation is an important step in providing protections to kids as it is, and it will be a more important step strengthened further by some amendments that we are be proposing tonight. I hope that you will hear everybody out and make a decision that is the in the best interest of all Manitobans. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. Thank you for presentation. Do members of the committee have any questions for the presenter? Hon.

Sharon Blady (Minister of Healthy Living and Seniors): Erin, as our Canadian Cancer Society point person in Manitoba, I want to thank you for your individual efforts and your dedication. And, as you know, I always learn so much from you a nd I will continue to learn from you. And I really do want to thank you for coming tonight and everything that the Cancer Society does, too, on behalf of Manitobans. And so I can –I look forward to our continued work together. Thank you for being here. Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Thanks for your presentation, for being here this evening.

I hope things are well at home after the committee hearing. The amendments that are in the package, is that something that you'd like to speak to or is that something that the national chairperson would prefer to speak to? [interjection] Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Yes, Ms. Crawford. Ms. Crawford: I'll let the national representative speak to that. Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Thank you, Erin, for coming. And I'll make this quick, but I think it is important that you tell us why you feel so strongly that menthol tobacco should be banned. [interjection] Mr. Chairperson: Ms.

Crawford, kindly address to the Chair. [interjection] Thank you. Go ahead, Ms. Crawford. Ms. Crawford: The Canadian Cancer Society is proposing two amendments that we feel would significantly strengthen the legislation as it's been put forward, and those two amendments are to remove

20 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 3, 2014 the exemption that currently is proposed for both menthol and chewing tobacco. The reason why we think that it's important to remove these exemptions is because having those exemptions means that a significant number of Manitoba children and youth are being left behind by this legislation. So we know from the data that a significant number of Manitoba youth who are using tobacco products are using menthol products and so they are not going to get the protections out of this legislation that we would like them to have if the menthol is exempt. Mr.

Chairperson: And no questions? Thank you for your presentation. Now I would like to call upon Daniel More to come and give presentations. Do you have any written material? Mr. Daniel More (Brigham Enterprises): I do have some written material to distribute. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. Now you may proceed with your presentation. Mr. More: Thank you. I'd like to thank the committee for giving me this opportunity to stand in front of you today, also for the concession made so that I can get home.

I would just like to speak quickly on Bill 52, first starting with we–Brigham is a 106-year-old specialty tobacco business. We share Manitoba's concerns about tobacco and youth smoking. Our company has always dealt with specialty tobacco that we h ave felt very strongly has the appeal, access and distribution to adults who are making informed decisions. What we are concerned about with Bill 52 is its lack of due diligence and the statistics that have combined with it, as Mark Twain has suggested, lies, damn lies and statistics. There are parts of this legislation that are based on studies, or parts of studies.

And I'd just like to clarify a few things, which is, first of all, that there is absolutely no research or government data that links the use of any flavoured tobacco in kids starting to smoke. There–the–it's been said that flavoured tobacco are promoted to kids, which is the force behind Bill 52. This is biased and a skewed

interpretation based on excerpts from the Youth Smoking Survey, not what the survey itself says. The Youth Smoking Survey does not link the use of tobacco products, as I've said, to the uptake. The survey itself, conveniently left out, suggests that kids who have tried flavoured tobacco are already smokers. The survey –the statistics in the survey suggest that kids who are not already smokers have next to a zero per cent chance of trying flavoured tobacco. The survey also suggests that –and I don't want to be unbiased; I'll play both ends. The statistics are there to be read.

Of the kids who do try flavoured tobacco, 50 per cent of that is menthol. The issue here is access and the access, 75 per cent of that comes from friends and family. Specialty tobacco, our concerns are 1 per cent of the tobacco consumed in this country and 0.5 per cent of that use is flavoured tobacco. * (18:20) The legislation, as it has been proposed right now, does not, with the exceptions that it has, doesn't take into consideration pipe tobacco, which I don't think is the type of thing that appeal s to kids. At the very least, we'd like to see that excluded.

We'd like to see, perhaps, to provide an opportunity for due diligence and to look a little bit more closely at what the issues here are–and I can't cover it in 10 minutes– is to suggest a wider parameter of prescribed products that then can be weighed and balanced and considered for their individual merits. As I say, we want to prevent kids from starting to smoke in the first place. It's the right thing to do and we are right behind that. We want to see measures taken that are going to be enforceable and doable.

When we saw Bill C -32 come into effect, those of us stakeholders in this industry knew that that was going to fall short and was not going to achieve what it had set out to do. The loophole found in Bill C -32 isn't a loophole ; it's called compliance. A nd, when compliance was set at 1.4 grams, companies complied; that's not a loophole. The legislation was poorly conceived because it went through too quickly and that's what we're sugg esting here with Bill 52, is it's being run through without due diligence and proper consideration. Thank you for providing an opportunity for me to state these things. Mr.

Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Do members of the committee have any questions for the presenter? Ms. Blady : I'd like to thank you, Mr. More, for coming out here. I do appreciate, obviously, the

June 3, 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 21 extreme time and dedication it has taken for you to be out here tonight, and I do really appreciate your input and will take your views into consideration along with all of the presenters. Thank you. Mr. Cliff Graydon (Emerson): Thank you, Mr. More, as well, for taking the time to come out and make the presentation tonight. And you made a couple of really good points that is disputed by many on the other side. I mean, there was definitely two strong sides to this whole issue of smoking.

But, at the same time, the question that I would ask you is, if this is banned, would we be forcing the tobac co industry –the flavoured tobacco industry to go underground? Mr. More: In my opinion, that is always a –or often a repercussion of legislation of this sort. Contraband–these products are still available in the United States. In fact, you don't have to bring them in. Unless flavoured tobacco is made to be a possession offence by individuals, a person travelling to the United States could bring it in under their duty-free exemption.

They could bring it back from other provinces who don't have this sort of restrictive legislation, and on that note of possession, perhaps, one of the ways to limit youth access or, perhaps, provide a second thought before accessing or acquiring these types of products, would be similar to alcohol where –and I'm not looking at making criminals out of victims here. What I'm suggesting is a fine like alcohol. You're a minor, you have alcohol out of your home, you get a $50 fine or whatever it happens to be, and that's justification to think twice before participating in this type of thing.

I drive by high schools at lunchtime and I see kids out on the street smoking all the time and they're smoking cigarettes. They aren't smoking flavoured tobacco. I know it's an anecdotal research, but they're not out there drinking beer, and that' s because there are possession laws for them that would make them – that would restrict that kind of action. Mr. Graydon: So, as it stands now, flavoured tobacco has an oversight that when you go to buy flavoured tobacco you have to be 18 years of old– 18 years of age and have adequate ID.

So there is a certain degree of oversight, not that I'm encouraging people to smoke, but at the same time we do have oversight now. But if it goes underground, how do we police it? In your mind, how would that be policed? Mr. More: There–it's impossible to police. The same youth studies identify that drug uses –use of marijuana, kids who have tried marijuana, fa r exceeds the–and illicit drugs, far exceeds those that use flavoured tobacco.

So once flavoured tobacco goes underground, seemingly, it would be easier to get flavoured tobacco than it would be to get cigarettes, that you would need to go into a store and meet the compliance requirements to purchase. Mr. Graydon: Correct me if I'm wrong, but you do travel across Ca nada a lot. Would you say that marijuana is available in any of the cities that you go to? Readily available? Mr. More: Well, I don't know firsthand, but seeing that Vancouver is affectionately known as Vansterdam and Vangroovy, and from the stories I've heard, I think it's fairly accessible there.

Since the decriminalization of marijuana, I think that the concerns for simple possession have decreased. With the medical marijuana, I think that it has increased and is more readily available than certainly in products like this. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Graydon, limiting of time, I would have to request you, there are other members who want to ask questions, if you may be quick, and Mr. More can be quick in answer, because we are limiting time now. Mr. Graydon: I'll do the best that I can. So then, Mr.

More, when you spoke of marijuana being available in most cities, and it's not from personal experience, of course, but –and with the comments that you've made after that, are you suggesting then that at one point we're going to see marijuana be legalized? Mr. More: I'm not in a position to talk about that. I don't know the issues other than the statistics that I'm looking under the youth smoking survey, identifying that those same high school kids have tried marijuana, illicit drugs, pharmaceutical drugs, alcohol and binge drinking far in excess to flavoured tobacco. Mr.

Chairperson: I'm sorry, the limit is crossing, but I would allow one question, Dr. Gerrard, if you may ask a brief one. Mr. Gerrard: Very briefly. You mentioned a high rate of menthol use or menthol tobacco products. If you were going to

22 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 3, 2014 effectively ban flavoured tobacco, would it make sense to include menthol tobacco? Mr. More: The statistics indicate that menthol, as a flavour, is one -half of all of the flavours consumed under flavoured tobacco. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much. Now we'd like to call Mr. Mike Klander. Yes, Mr. Klander, do you have any written material to distribute? Mr. Mike Klander (Rothmans Benson & Hedges): Yes, I do. Mr. Chairperson: Please go ahead. Yes, kindly go ahead and make your presentation, Mr. Klander. Mr. Klander: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Mike Klander . I'm the manager of corporate affairs for Rothmans Benson & Hedges Incorporated. Rothmans Benson & Hedges is a wholly owned subsidiary of Phillip Morris International, and Canada's second largest tobacco company. We employ over 700 employees in Canada, where we manufacture cigarettes and fine-cut tobacco. Now we also distribute pipe tobacco and cigar products. * (18:30) Rothmans Benson & Hedges understands the purpose of Bill 52 is to prohibit the sale of flavoured tobacco products, which target youth, and we support that goal.

At the same time, we believe that the proposed bill is drafted in such a manner that it sweeps in several traditional tobacco products, such as pipe tobacco and tipped pipe tobacco cigars, which have been used by adult smokers in Canada for decades. And those products, we believe, are materially different than the products which are, we believe, is the focus of this bill.

Therefore, I'm appearing here today to ask for a limited exemption for these adult -oriented products, similar to the exemptions that already exist in the bill for other traditional products s uch as menthol and smokeless products, including snuff and chewing tobacco. We are also concerned about the impact this bill could have on the growing illicit trade problem in Manitoba. While illicit trade is not as prevalent in Manitoba as it is in centr al Canada, it is –we believe is on the rise, and we would encourage the government to carefully look at the impact this bill would have on contraband tobacco.

Just briefly, on pipe tobacco, and the previous guest touched upon it, if you were to go into any tobacconist shop, you'll quickly discover that a vast majority of pipe tobacco is flavoured. Many of the same flavours this bill intends to eliminate are found in pipe tobacco–vanilla, cherry, plum, rum, chocolate. Pipe tobacco, with its unique aromas and tastes, have been available since at least the 19th century in that format. Bill 52, the way we read it, would ban most of those pipe tobacco blends. The other product I want to talk to you about today is Captain Black.

RBH is the sole Canadian distributor of Captain Black, which is a pipe tobacco and a tip pipe tobacco cigar. They've been on the Canadian market for over 18 years. Each of these products is carefully blended to create a unique flavour and aroma, which is only found in pipe tobacco. Flavo uring agents are used to replenish natural sugars lost during the curing process and –in some of the tobacco blends and to create the unique taste of the product. I just brought some, just for visually – [interjection] No visuals? Am I permitted to show you our products? Mr. Chairperson: No, I'm sorry.

That may not be appropriate here. Mr. Klander: Okay. In my presentation there are photos of our products, if you can see, Mr. Chairman. I also, for the benefit of this committee, did bring samples of the products which we believe this bill was intended to address. I could show them to you or very well describe them to you, but that being said, I'll talk to you about Captain Black. It comes in two formats, pipe tobacco and tip pipe tobacco cigars, and four spec ific blends: original, gold, red, and royal.

Since we don't actually manufacture these products I can't give you the exact profile, but I can tell you that they are flavoured and there are sweet, sidestream aromas. The Captain Black red has a cherry -like flavour and both the red and gold variants do have tips that are sweetened. The other products that we refer to were blunt wraps that come in flavours such as mango, watermelon–if I can show them –if I was able to show them to you, you would see the colour ful packaging that they come in. Cigarillos that come in

June 3, 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 23 strawberry flavours–I have a package here that is Dutch chocolate, and varying degrees. What I wanted to show you through that is the visual of the difference of the type of products that I'm referring to here. Our products' design are neutral and adult -oriented and clearly not in the same category of those colourful or candy -like products that the bill was intended to address. They are products not represented in any way as having a candy, confectionary, or alcohol flavour.

For these reasons, we don't believe that Captain Black pipe tobacco or pipe tobacco cigars should be banned by the province. Instead, we believe these products should be treated in a similar manner as the other adult -oriented tr aditional products that have already been exempted by this bill.

Therefore we would recommend the following amendment to the bill or its regulations: That the following flavoured products are exempted: pipe tobacco products, including pipe tobacco, pipe tobacco cigars and tip cigars that are not by their packaging, labelling, advertising or otherwise represented as having a candy, confectionary, or alcohol flavour. And, finally, I briefly touched upon the illicit trade issue. I just have a few more comments on that.

A recent study conducted late last year by the Western Canadian Convenience Store Association found that 15 per cent of all cigarettes in Manitoba were illicit or contraband. The study, which collected over 4,400 discarded cigarette butts from 30 public locations across the province found contraband to be as high as 30 per cent in some of those locations. We're all too well aware of the contraband problem that currently exists in Ontario, but make no mistake: the problem also exists here in Manitoba.

Ontario's inability to combat illicit trade, coupled with the tremendous tax disparity between the two provinces, where the provincial tobacco tax alone is $30 higher in this province than in the neighbouring province, makes this province ripe for a rise in illicit trade. While we do support a ban on candy and confectionary flavours that target youth, at the same time we strongly urge the government to fight contraband tobacco so that the products it wishes to ban simply don't end up moving from t he legitimate market to the underground economy.

Any decision that prohibits the sale of tobacco products to legal- age smokers has the potential to create a vacuum that criminals and conveyers of illicit tobacco will quickly exploit. Based on our experien ce in Canada and markets around the world, we believe that product bans like this one can lead to increased contraband activity, particularly if those measures are not accompanied by measures to combat illicit trade. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation.

Now, the reason I did not, you know, kind of allow that–it's an exhibit, and as I understand, the committee rules are not permitting you to exhibit. Mr. Goertzen: Is there a possibility that– I understand the rules and I a gree with the rules, but I'm not a smoker, and I –most tobaccos are now concealed behind gates in stores, so I don't get a chance to see these things, and I don't really want to go to 7- Eleven and ask them to start showing me around.

Like, can I just get a chance to see the difference between the candied -flavoured ones and the Captain Black ones, because I just don't know what he's talking about. Hon. Andrew Swan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I think probably the best answer is if Mr. Goertzen wants to go over and talk to the presenter after, that's fine. I mean, the concern is that–I mean, there is a reason for the rule that exhibits not be provided.

There may be, for example, someone from the Canadian Cancer Society that might have some rathe r colourful exhibits as well about the dangers of smoking, and I think the rule, as it now stands [inaudible] chance to see in the submission, I think that's helpful. I would encourage Mr. Goertzen to have a chat with the presenter after the–after his presentation is done. Mr. Chairperson: I may have to cut this off now because we have limits of time. So I will request now –the presenter is here to ask–committee should ask questions if any member wishes to. Ms. Blady: Well, I just wanted to thank you, Mr.

Klander, for coming here; again, coming from out of town, taking the time to come here and present your input, and your knowledge is appreciated. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Madam Minister. Mr. Goertzen: Well, just as a note –I know my colleague has a question –I would like to see the difference, and so I –no disrespect to the next presenter, but we're stuck under rules from

24 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 3, 2014 apparently 100 years ago, so when you're done, I'll go and observe your products, and I don't want to disrespect the next presenter, so just so you're aware. Mr. Graydon: I want to also thank you, Mr. Klander, for your presentation. It was a very well-thought-out presentation, and as well as your amendment is well thought out, as well.

The fact that you pointed out–or the things that you pointed out is to how do you police the underground, and it just–it's something that really sticks in my craw is that we're going to drive this –we're going to drive the market underground rather than having an oversight. Have you any idea how we could do this? [interjection] Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Klander, kindly address to the Chair before answering. Thank you. Mr. Klander: The easy answer is it's incredibly difficult and you probably can't. Where I'm from in Ontario, in southern Ontario, they are –illicit tobacco products are widely available.

Any Ontarian can enter a–one of the Aboriginal reserves in Ontario, they can go and buy products. No one asks for ID, you can buy any product. There are no health warnings. People are giving you samples, you can try it. You can buy as much of this as you want. Sometimes the price of a–200 cigarettes is about the– it's about the same price as a movie ticket, compared to a legal carton of cigarettes which is anywhere between 80 and 100 dollars in Ontario. So I think in pl aces like Ontario they have legislation in place to combat this, but there just simply isn't the political will to seize people and arrest them.

They'll go after big shipments, but they won't go after individuals going to the reserve. And if I could just a lso add, you don't have to go on the reserve to get these products. Everyone knows someone who will deliver it, and, sadly, people don't believe they're breaking the law. At the end of the day, they think the two people that they're sticking it to are the government and tobacco companies, which, as most of you know, are very easy targets. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. * (18:40) Mr. Gerrard: You mentioned that in some places the contraband tobacco has been identified as much as 30 per cent.

Is it easy to identify the contraband versus the non -contraband? And as a corollary to this, if it were, it was suggested earlier on that there be a possession fine for youth with flavour –well, for youth with tobacco and could you have a possession fine for somebody with c ontraband cigarettes? [interjection] Mr. Chairperson: Kindly address through the Chair. Thank you. Yes, Mr. Klander. Mr. Klander: The–in terms of the studies that we refer to as butt studies, third -party research firms collect these and it's as simple finding what the brand is on the cigarette filter.

Most of the legal products do have a brand name. Actually, some of the illicit products are branded, as well, but we know what those products are. And in terms of your second question, it's my understanding, at least I know it is Ontario and in other places, possession of contraband tobacco is a fineable offence. The problem that we have–Quebec obviously has much larger fines than Ontario is. Ontario, technically speaking, you could be fined up to $574.10–tha t number might have changed when the tax increase–for the possession of one contraband cigarette. To our knowledge no one's ever been charged with that.

In Ontario, because of certain political sensitivities, there just simply isn't the political will to p ut fines on individual smokers and very little happens. Quebec, on the other hand, has been much more vigilant and aggressive in their approach and they've seen success. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. Mr. Graydon: I want to thank you again, Mr. Klander, for making your presentation and also pointing out the difference in a price of a carton of cigarettes in northwestern Ontario and Manitoba and the fact that there –perhaps you know but there is a – been a big bust of cigarettes coming in through Manitoba.

I think there was over a million cigarettes in that bus t. We're certainly a place where–that's already ripe for underground and gang- related activity. This is just going to add to it then, according to what you're saying. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Klander, I will request you– as the time is already 5 o'clock –I mean five minutes, so I would request you make your answer very brief, if you can. Mr. Klander: I think the Manitoba -Ontario corridor is a significant issue. I think it's very easy to bring products across. The –some of the large scale–and we're talking about these illicit products on reserve in Ontario.

These are large- scale, multibillion -dollar companies who have manufacturing facilities that

June 3, 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 25 rival ours. They are trying to export their products to reserves–they already do to reserves across Ontario and I believe also into western Canada. There have been some success in stopping them here but it will continue to happen. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much. Now your time is –thank you for your presentation and so now we will move to Mr. Rob Cunningham. Mr. Cunningham, do you have any material to distribute? Mr. Rob Cunningham (Canadian Cancer Socie ty, National Office): Chair, it has already been distributed through Erin Crawford.

It is the material that's in this folder. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. So go ahead with your presentation. Mr. Cunningham: Thank you, Chair, and members of the committee for the opportunity to present today on this very important bill. Let me just first identify the materials that are in the–before you in terms of the written materials.

We have our brief, which has been endorsed by a large number of health organizations, apart from the Canadian Cancer Society: the Manitoba Dental Association, Manitoba Lung Association, Manitoba Society of Pharmacists, Sport Manitoba, some leading academics with expertise in this area, the Manitoba Dental Hygienists Association, Manitoba Tobacco Reduction Alliance and some of those witnesses will be appearing later before you tonight. And these organizations all recommend two amendments to improve the bill with respect to ensuring a ban on menthol cigarettes and a ban on flavoured chewing tobacco and snuff.

Also in this material is the text of proposed amendments for your consideration, very short amendments that could remove this exemption, these–for menthol cigarettes and for chewing tobacco and snuff. Also in the brief is this study from October 2013 from the Propel Centre for Population Health Impact data for the nation- wide Youth Smoking Survey. And I'll speak to that in a moment. And finally, there are some examples of different flavoured tobacco products available for sale, and I'l l speak to that. I also do have many examples–and I understand I cannot demonstrate actual products.

I have them with me so if members of the committee would like to see them afterwards, I can show those actual products. Mr. Chairperson: May I request you not to exhibit any material that we have. It's not within the rules of the committee to exhibit even photographs and things like that. So you have distributed your material. That's okay. But kindly go ahead and make the presentation. Mr. Cunningham: Thank you, Chair. I'd like to begin by reiterating what's acknowledged in the brief in terms of Manitoba's long- standing leadership in the area of tobacco control.

Manitoba was the second province in Canada to ban the visible display of tobacco products in r etail and one of the first jurisdictions in the world to do so. Manitoba is one of the first provinces to have 100 per cent smoke -free restaurants and bars. I see Minister Swan here –with respect to introduction of the lawsuit against the tobacco industr y for health-care costs.

And today, Manitoba leads Canada with tobacco tax administration agreements with First Nations to allow that the amount equal to the provincial tobacco tax be included in the price for on- reserve sales to status Natives, and the First Nations governments keep that revenue. That's a model for the rest of Canada. And it's also relevant to discussions of contraband because it very much helps with respect to that. The bill–Bill 52 is a very important bill. Tobacco use is a leading p reventable cause of disease and death in Manitoba and in Canada.

The overwhelming majority of new tobacco consumers are underage teenagers. We need to do everything we can to prevent kids from starting to smoke or use tobacco products. And it's a product that's highly addictive. It causes cancer. It kills. And we should not be making these deadly products taste better, easier for kids to start or to consume. It's a concern with respect to youth. And now we have some young adults who started off smoking these flavoured products as kids and who are 19 to 24, so it's a concern in that vulnerable age group as well.

There is no justification, in our view, and this is based upon and confirmed by the emerging trend of governments worldwide with respect to legisla tion on flavoured tobacco and elsewhere in Canada.

26 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 3, 2014 Alberta, in December, with all parties' support, had legislation adopted to ban flavours in all types of tobacco products. There's no exemptions for chewing tobacco or snuff. There's no exemptions for me nthol cigarettes. That legislation has n ot been proclaimed. It's not yet in force. Regulations could make exemptions, but the government has not made any indication that they intend to make such exemptions.

And we would urge that the same level of protecti on for Manitoba kids be included in terms of strengthening the amendments to avoid loopholes in this bill, as we see in Alberta. So to address the exemptions one by one, if I invite members to go to this document that shows images of flavoured tobacco products on the third-last page –are examples of flavoured chewing tobacco and snuff. And I purchased identical brands and flavours today in Winnipeg. These are accessible to boys in Manitoba. That's including athletes, baseball players, hockey players who would not otherwise be smoking.

And so we have examples, you know, sold today: citrus, cherry, mint, peach, candy and fruit flavours. This should not be for these categories of products, you know. We should not have a candy coating for cancer-causing products. You would be familiar, I believe, members of the committee, with the Winnipeg Free Press feature from last December 20th on terms of male athletes in Manitoba using chewing tobacco. Last Friday, the journalist who wrote that received a national newspaper award for that and a couple of other sports features. It's a real health problem in Manitoba.

And we would urge an amendment to ban flavoured chewing tobacco and snuff, to remove that exemption in the same way that bills in every other province that have been introduced to date have done so. There is no exemption elsewhere. With respect to menthol cigarettes, it's become a huge problem among youth and is way more popular among youth than among adults. Thirty-four per cent of Manitoba high school student smokers, and this is included in the brief, smoke menthol, compared to only 4 per cent of cigarettes sold in Canada that are menthol. So it's a huge problem among youth. It's a local anesthetic.

It soothes the throat. It makes it easier to start. It discourages quittin g. And it is the most popular flavour. * (18:50) And of the 5,800 Manitoba high school students who use flavoured tobacco product, 2,900 use menthol, 1,000, mainly males, use chewing tobacco and snuff. So if we were to have these exemptions, we'd be having a very significant loopholes in terms of allowing these flavoured tobaccos to be continued to be sold for kids.

I would like to touch on some other issues that have been raised by the witnesses before me, and you see on the last two pages of these images of products, after smokes tobacco, you have these examples of water pipe tobacco. So a dozen years ago hookah or sheesha was a non-issue. It's taken off in North America, in Europe and Australia among younger people, teenagers and young adults.

It's heavily flavoured and you see these examples here of orange and strawberry, of cola, cola- flavoured tobacco products, cinnamon, and if there was to be this exemption for pipe tobacco proposed by Rothmans Benson & Hedges, it creates a loophole that would a llow water pipe tobacco. And the tobacco industry, if there was ever an expert at exploiting loopholes, it's the tobacco industry, and we cannot allow loopholes. And so we cannot support the ame ndment that's been proposed by big tobacco. And it would weake n protection for Manitoba kids.

Contraband–Manitoba authorities are to be commended for their efforts to reduce contraband – tremendous success. And because Manitoba uniquely has these great controls with respect to reserves, you don't have the same leakag e or problems that you find in central Canadian provinces. The tobacco industry always rates its contraband as reasons to not have package warnings, to not have display bands, to have anything. In fact, after–despite these arguments, after package warnin gs went on packages, contraband went down. After displays were banned in Ontario and Quebec, contraband went down.

They always raise this argument to oppose every type of regulation. Sure we can do more to try and enforce sales to minors, but it's notoriously difficult and kids are getting these despite these laws being on the books for more than a hundred years. In terms of –in terms of Alberta and Nova Scotia, they have banned youth possession, but there is no demonstrated evidence that this has reduced y outh tobacco use. We would need an army of inspectors to be chasing after kids all the time.

June 3, 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 27 So there's a lot, I believe, in terms of full rationale in the brief as to why our two proposed amendments would strengthen the bill. We urge these for your consi deration. I look forward to any questions you may have. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Ms. Blady: I want to thank you very much for coming, Rob. Again I really appreciate the time that you took to travel here to Winnipeg and to present on this important matter.

I have to say we really do value the work that the Canadian Cancer Society does and, again, all the work that you do to fight cancer in general but –and over the years, I have to say I'm really pleased with work that we've done like partnering on the many important initiatives, like the smokers' health line, and you know, working with both you and Health Canada to have that 1 -800 number placed on all cigarette packaging, as you say, that was an important step. And, again, we continue to work together to promote the help line.

And I'd also like to say that thanks to that partnership, that we have seen a twofold increase in call numbers to the help line, meaning that between 1,500 and 2,000 Manitobans are now receiving the professional support in their quit attempt. And so, again, I really do want to thank you for the incredible role that you play in reducing tobacco use in Canada, and I also want to congratulate you, too, on receiving recognition for your work from the World He alth Organization. That's again, very impressive.

So I have to say that I am looking forward to future work with you and especially with you, the Cancer Society and the Minister of Health (Ms. Selby) on restricting tanning bed use for those under the age o f 18 years of age. So I know that there's much good work that we can continue to do together. Mr. Blaine Pedersen (Midland): Thank you, Mr. Cunningham, for your presentation and obviously your organization's been a leader in the fight against tobacco. In t he interest of the time, I'm going to ask two questions in one. So I'll just go ahead and ask the two questions.

First of all, why was these amendments that you're proposing, why was this not included in the original legislation? Were you not consulted or is there a specific reason ? A nd then, secondly, you've brought forward a couple of amendments. Is there any indication from government that they're going to accept these amendments? Mr. Cunningham: I thank you for the questions. Our recommendation to all provincial govern - ments is to have a ban on flavours in all categories of tobacco products, without exception.

That's what been adopted to date in terms of Alberta, although there's always a –the–it's not proclaimed yet, so the regulations are not finalized, but that is our recommendation. In terms of specifically what the government intends to do with respect to these amendments, we're hopeful that after the committee deliberations and hearing the witnesses and considering the evidence, that ideally today those amendments would be adopted, and if not, at report stage. Mr.

Gerrard: I note that on your brief you have the support from Manitoba dentists and Manitoba dental hygienists, and I would presume that this is in part because of the significant deleterious impact of these products on the mouth and the oral cavity. Can you talk about this, and particularly as it's relevant to the menthol and the oral chewing tobacco flavoured products? [interjection] Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Cunningham, please addr ess through the Chair. Thank you. Mr.

Cunningham: Dentists and dental hygienists see daily, first-hand, what chewing tobacco and snuff can do in terms of oral health, in terms of gum disease, tooth loss, oral cancer, in the same way that physicians see daily what all categories of tobacco products can do. So I –we know that dental associations in Manitoba and nationally have been very active in trying to deal with this issue of chewing tobacco and snuff and flavour, and the Canadian Dental Association has been very active in urging that. And I think, yes, that's absolutely a fundamental reason why that they have supported that amendment. Mr.

Graydon: Thanks for the presentation, Mr. Cunningham. And the question I have is, why do you suppose that menthol f lavouring was exempted by, firstly, the federal government, and then, of course, the provincial government? What would your opinion be for that? [interjection] Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Cunningham, please address through the Chair. Thank you. Mr. Cunningham: The federal bill, C -32, was introduced in 2009, and it dealt with, what was at the time, an emergence of cigarillos, because there was

28 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 3, 2014 evidence that that product category had a tremendous increase in youth use. The government explained before the committee–the Standing Committee on Health at the House of Commons –that they were not dealing with other categories of tobacco products because they did not have evidence of youth use, whether menthol, whether smokeless tobacco, chewing tobacco, snuff. That's no longer the case. A lot of time has elapsed, there's new research available.

And this research that's in the material before you, the youth smoking survey, you know, the data that was released in October 2013, provides this data of high youth use, and so it's time that we respond accordingly. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Graydon, we have –no, sorry–I'm really sorry. There is no time left. It's five minutes past. So thank you very much, Mr. Cunningham, for your presentation. Now I'd like to call upon Le s Hagen. Les Hagen is not here. Now, Les Hagen not being here, the name will be dropped to the bottom of the list. Now I would like to go to– yes, we would now request Ken Guilford. Mr.

Ken Guilford (Private Citizen) : You're very close, Mr. Chairperson. It's Ken Guilford, but you're very close. I must commend you on a great job you have of speaking to us nice and slowly, and that's great. But that's not why I'm here. I'd like to thank the committee, NDP, the Conservative– Mr. Chairperson: Would you kindly hold one second, sir. Thank you. Bill 49–The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act Mr. Chairperson: My mistake, I should have started that we are talking now about Bill 49. And this is where we'd go and get the presenters done.

So, like you to–we like you to start your presentation. Do you have any materials to be distributed? Mr. Ken Guilford (Private Citizen) : No, I don't. I don't even have the bill because it wasn't given to me. Mr. Chairperson: Kindly go ahead and make your verbal presentation. * (19:00) Mr. Guilford: What is Bill 49, please? An Honourable Member: The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation. Mr. Chairperson: Go ahead, sir. Mr. Guilford: Well, what happened to the other – [interjection] Oh, okay, okay. Thanks.

What I would like to say is with as much as –at all–as I like the government –would they mind quit spending as much money as they do? There's about 10 pages of what? And you want me to read this yet? Now, how the hell am I going to read all that? What I would like to say instead is make three announcements, if I could, please, three very important–which involves everybody. Can I make three announcements? What I'd like to say is today is our day, o -u-r, our day. You know what happened today? Judy Wasylycia -Leis, sh e accepted her nomination for some –to be mayor of Winnipeg. Yeah, woo. I love it.

She's my mentor, she's my best friend, she and Ron, I tell you, they are great. I love them, and I'm so happy that Judy is gone in there. You know what? With Judy on my te am, I'm here, all the more excited to let you know that Judy – a lot of you people don't have time to read, write, whatever. I don't either. You know why I do? Because my home care worker this morning brought me the newspaper so I knew that Judy Wasylycia-Leis is going to be the new mayor. Why?

Because I'm also on her team, and I been here, I don't know how many days or whatever speaking in the Legislative Building, I've been here for the purpose of getting to know people. I've been here also to show people can see on the outside. I'm hoping that they–what's the matter? You okay, Andrea? Can I stay–keep on speaking or do you want [inaudible] They're taking the Chairperson's knowledge away. Can I continue speaking now? No, he's too busy with Andrea. Chief Cler k, can I speak now? The Chairperson doesn't want to answer. Mr. Chairperson: Yes. Mr. Guilford: Thank you.

What I would like to say is please don't interrupt me anymore and I–when I'm fired up, I want to keep fired up, and I would also like to say [inaudible] Are you listening to me or what? I'd like to hear and see people that are intent and would like to hear what I have to say, because you two over there are ignorant. That's what I would say, ignorant, and that is not a swear word. But he keeps on at it. I would like to bar

June 3, 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 29 that guy. I'd like to bar him because he does not know when to keep his mouth shut. I'm not telling him [inaudible] time right now, I'm cut off and I'm on a time out right now. When you guys come into my office, I give a time out to people. But this is not my office. But I say that we have a time out while Andrea gets his business done, and then Andrea can come in and start listening then. I do not like it, Andrea, if you ignore me all the time. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Guilford, could I request you to get a pause here.

I didn't notice that there is a mic which the television station has put on that. It is not customary here but, anyways, if you are okay with that, I don't think I have any problem with that, but we have to make sure that we don't get deviate from the norms of the committee. I request you to please to keep in mind the respect of the committee. Mr. Guilford: I have respect. I don't have respect with anybody that's cuts me off, like Andrea does. Mr. Chairperson: Could I request you to kindly address through the Chair.

But, when I request you to take a pause, kindly understand we are all trying to do our job here and the best and respecting the rules and regulations of the committee. So kindly ensure that you are agreeable with that mic which is put on your dais. So please go ahead. You have a limit of 10 minutes of your presentation, so please go ahead and make your presentation. Mr. Guilford: On one condition, Sir– Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. Mr. Gilford: –tha t that guy keeps quiet and listens to me. You're the Chairperson and city clerk. Yes, you can Andrea, friends or not, you can.

May I have that permission, S ir, to keep him quiet? I want him out of the room. They all do that. Both–both. They all do what y ou say, then I'll –you do what I say. Is he prepared to listen? And then I'll carry on. No, he's not. Mr. Chairperson: Continue. Mr. Guilford: I want him out of the room because he has no respect for me at all. You don't, because you keep on yapping. Mr. Chairperson: Now, I would request you to please come–you know, come to order. Let us respect the committee's norms and stand and speak as politely as you can.

Make your points, but please do not bring commotions here because we are listening to your points. Floor Comment: There were no motions being brought. I asked you before if I could make announcements. Those were announcements, Sir. I think you don't understand. And when I ask somebody to keep quiet, I don't –Andrea, the Clerk, I don't think he understands. I will agree with you, and I thought I was agreeing you–that I will agree with you, Sir, if he keeps quiet. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Guilford, kindly understand.

We–I request you to make your presentation on the issue that you want to talk about, this pa rticular bill. With–without–[interjection] could I please request you not to interrupt when I'm speaking? I request you to bring the points you want to say without commotion and without, you know, display of anger and frustration. We are here to listen to your points, but please speak with clarity and with respecting the stature of the committee.

Give your points; we will listen to–committee members will listen to you, and we would have given you a chance to, as we are allowing everyone to speak freely, but please respect the norm of the committee. So kindly go ahead. Conclude your presentations as best as you can. Thank you. Mr. Guilford: When–like, you paused, and I thought you quit three times now. I'm sorry. I thought you quit three times. You know, I s tarted talking, and then you're up again. What I would say is that goes for all of us in this room. Keep quiet while I'm speaking. Remind me of your answer, Sir. I'm waiting for your answer.

And I'm not–this is a time out right now because you don't want to answer, and I'm waiting for you to answer, Sir. You know what I asked you. Why don't you answer it? Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Guilford, I am requesting you–I am the Chair of the committee. I am not here to answer your questions. I am here to listen to you, to make sure that the committee members listen to your presentation. Therefore, please make presentations as clearly as possible, and I will do my job as Chair to give committee members a chance to listen to you and ask questions. That is my limitation is only that.

So please respect that, and please make your presentation. You are not here to ask questions to the Chair. You are here to make a presentation to

30 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 3, 2014 the committee, and members are here listening to you, so please make your presentation. You have only four minutes left. Mr. Guilford: No, I don't. I got a lot more. You know why? Because you interrupt me, interrupt me, interrupt me. And that guy there, just when I tried start, he started talking already. That's crazy, Andrea. You're the chairperson, you're looking after this room. And w ho are you? Andrea –I know I'm forgetting your last name, but it won't– Mr.

Chairperson: I would request you now, sir, that–[interjection] I'm requesting you now, as a Chair, that the topic is here to discuss on the Bill 49. Now, we are deviating too much and we are bringing commotion here. So I respectfully am asking you, your time is really out now. If you have any specific points to make, please make it briefly within a minute. Mr. Guilford: Okay. All I had to say is, it's very childish and very uncouth, especially for a man of that stature in the city clerk, Andrea. You don't understand what I'm saying is everybody else kept quiet except for you. And now you're talking again.

I'm quitting. T hat's it. I can't compete with you, Andrea. I cannot compete against you. You're crazy. I'm good. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, sir. Honourable minister, you have any points to say? * (19:10) Hon. Andrew Swan (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act): Yes, Mr. Guilford, I know you've come down and presented a number of times, and I've known you for a number of years. This is a very democratic process, right? Anybody can come down and present to a committee of members of the Legislature.

You've got three parties represented here today, and you have the opportunity to have members hear what you have to say. Every word that you say is being recorded by the people behind me and there's a transcript being made. And it's a very democratic process, but, Mr. Guilford, you have to understand that goes both ways.

And just as you're entitled to have members of this committee hear you and respect what you have to say, there is a requirement that you offer that same respect, and–as I'm the minister sitting in this chair, but reflecting on the Chair and reflecting on non-partisan staff of this Legislature is not something that any member of this committee accepts. So, Mr. Guilford, I know you're going to be back up here on some other bills. You are welcome to present; it is your right as a Manitoban . But it's your responsibility as a Manitoban not to reflect on what the Chair is doing or what the staff are doing.

It's your opportunity to tell us what you think about particular bills, and if that is what you do, nobody is going to stop you from doing that. But I have to tell you, as somebody who's known you for a long time, if you continue to reflect on these two gentlemen, the members of this committee will tell you that we do not want you to come back and present, and I don't want us to have to do that. Mr. Chairperson: Mr.

Guilford, could I request you–now that the minister has explained to his point, respectfully we are all asking you not to give up your right but please respect also the right of others who are sitting here doing their job to listen to you peacefully. Therefore, I request you to conclude your presentation. We have only one minute I have requested you and given, so please conclude that, and then we will ask any committee members to ask you questions. That will be open too. So please conclude. Mr.

Guilford: What I would like to say is I agree with most of you, MLA Andrew Swan, and I don't know your name because you never mentioned it. But I agree with both of you to a point. The thing is, the point is, we all should be quiet and listen to each other. We have to listen to each other. We have– that's–how else we're going to know? You can't know without doing that. That's all I have to say about that. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much. Now I would request committee members, if you have any questions to ask the presenter, please go ahead.

Seeing no questions, I would thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Guilford. Now, the second presentation on Bill 49 will be from John McDonald. Please come and make your presentation. Thank you, Mr. McDonald. Do you have any written material to distribute?

June 3, 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 31 Mr. John McDonald (Private Citizen ): I did, but I noticed there was a typing error in it, and so I will send it directly to the minister tomorrow. Mr. Chairperson: Okay, so please go ahead and make your presentation, sir. Mr. McDonald : If I could have the liberty, and if I'm taking too much, I'm sure you will let me know, I'd like everybody in the committee, and I thank you for allowing me to be here, to pretend that you are the sole income earner in your household. You're stay-at-home spouse; you have two young children under the age of two.

You get the phone call from the RCMP; your stay -at-home spouse has just got killed on the Perimeter Highway. This is not a makeup story; it happened to Landon Hall [phonetic] and his wife, Samantha – September 2, 2012. The driver entered the eastbound Perimeter heading west. Now, under the PIPP death benefits set out in the legislation, there's a lump sum paid out to a non- earning spouse of X amount of dollars. It –the surviving stay -at-home parent receives –well, it's a minimum death benefit. The surviving spouse of the stay-at-home parent now faces massive change of life but also massive costs.

Now, the expenditures of daycare are extremely high, especially if you've got two children. If your occupation takes you past 5 o'clock, as everyone in here realizes, you got to get somebody in early in the morning and late in the evening to look after your two children. The cost of a nanny in this situation was $4,000 a month. I don't think any one of you here could go to the f inance department and say, I need an extra four grand a month to look after my kids. It does not happen. The caregiver weekly indemnity act, set out in

section 132, provides funding if the party is injured, regardless of how bad that injury is. Death is the ultimate injury, and there is nothing paid, other than the initial lump sum. And the funding will flow up to age 16, and I believe it's going to be increased to age 18 for those with a disability. The surviving spouse receives no compensation to look after the children under

section 132. I had an amendment that could be added to

section 132 which would subject

section 2, where the victim is described , dies as a result of the accident, the surviving spouse shall receive indemnity as set out in

section 132. It would be a very simple amendment to make to that section. It would not –it's not a long- paying situation, as children can stay home alone at age 12 . So the latest it would be paid is to–one child reaches 12; the other one's two years behind, there's two years extra. The disability benefit in this situation goes to the children aged 18 for the passing of the amendment that's being changed, and, if y ou happen to be the –a working spouse that gets injured, and that goes to age 65. The frequency of this type of accident is very low.

I've only heard of one in the last few years, and that's the one I'm talking about. The incident out in the west end of the city, where the hairdresser got killed, there was no children involved. So that is where I'm thinking that, under today's current legislation, there is a zero value given to a stay-at-home spouse. If Samantha had have been working, pulling in 50 grand a year, there would have been a much larger payout. * (19:20) A stay -at-home spouse, under this legislation, and it's nobody's fault here, but it can be changed and can be made retroactive, would put some value on a stay-at-home spouse.

That is my presentation. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. Mr. Swan : Well, Mr. McDonald, thank you for coming down and presenting to committee on a change you believe should be made and for speaking on behalf of, I presume it's friends of yours, who had this experience. And, obviously, all members of this committee are very sorry to hear that. You say yo u do have some other materials. I'll have my assistant grab you before you leave the building just to make sure that that gets to me as quickly as possible. And I will give that due consideration. Thank you for being here tonight. [interjection] Mr. Chai rperson: Mr.

McDonald, kindly be recognized before you speak. Mr. McDonald: Yes, sorry. Mr. Chairperson: Address to the Chair, thank you. Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Thank you for your presentation today, Mr. McDonald–I appreciate that–and on behal f of those that you're representing at committee.

32 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 3, 2014 So, just for clarity, what you're suggesting is that the weekly indemnity of the surviving spouse or partner of the deceased victim, that that weekly indemnity carried forward to the surviving spouse, would that be as long as they're not remarried or in another relationship? Or is there some thought you've given to when that would end? Mr. McDonald: Yes. If the surviving spouse remarried, or another partner, the benefits would stop. Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Again, thank you for your presentation and for coming in.

Just for clarity, you're suggesting that the benefits would stop when the oldest child is at age 12, or when all children are at age 12? Mr. McDonald: When the–all children reach age 12. The first child reaches age 12, the benefits, because there is benefit limits for one or two, three or four children. As each child reaches age 12, the benefits for that child would stop. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. No more questions? Thank you very much, Mr. McDonald. Bill 52–The Non-Smokers Health Protection Amendment Act (Prohibitions on Flavoured Tobacco and Other Amendments) (Continued) Mr.

Chairperson: Now we will go back to Bill 52. And Mr. Hinds, No. 3 on the bill, is asking to switch places to go after No. 4, Ken Guilford. Is that agreed? [Agreed] Also, for your information, Tessa Bortoluzzi will speak on behalf of SWAT in place of Nicole Gomes, No. 11 on the Bill 52 list. So now we are going to Bill 52 presenters, and I request Murray Gibson to make a presentation. Mr. Murray Gibson (MANTRA –Manitoba Tobacco Reduction Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair, honourable members– Mr. Chairperson: Do you have any material that you want to– Mr. Gibson: No, I do not. Mr. Chairperson: Okay.

So kindly go ahead and make your presentation. Mr. Gibson: Someone once said that the height of chutzpah was killing your parents, going to court, pleading for clemenc y, because you're now an orphan. I sort of feel like I'm standing in that kind of room today, and I want to talk about some of the bigger picture here. You know, we're being asked to consider certain exemptions to consider the tobacco industry, and I think it's time we stopped and just took a good look at the big picture. Is this good legislation? No, with qualification. Is it necessary legislation? Absolutely. Why is it absolutely necessary?

Because we're dealing with an industry, whether you want to cal l it big tobacco or little tobacco, that does not seem to understand the word no. You know why we're here tonight? Because in 2010, federal legislation was passed and the industry conveniently found a way to get around it. So I'm asking you tonight to consider if this is really the kind of an industry that we should be making exemptions for. They like to also talk about the 1,500 outlets they have across this province and make you believe that they're a big part of the Manitoba economy.

These 1,500 outle ts are not primarily businesses whose main purpose is to sell tobacco products. They complain about the high taxes that are on tobacco products and the $280 million that the province plans to take in tobacco taxes, but they never talk about the $260 millio n in direct health -care costs that are caused by smoking and the additional $530 million in indirect costs the economy that result from smoking in this province. Where's the economic benefit? They talk about adult choice and rights. Whose choice?

The choi ce of two thirds of those who smoke, who are totally addicted to the nicotine of the products? Whose rights? I have yet to read in the Charter of Rights that smoking is a guaranteed right. I don't know if anybody else has. Flavoured tobacco is really abou t lipstick on a pig; it's about making a product that is the No. 1 cause of premature death and morbidity in this province look attractive. It's about attracting new smokers and keeping existing smokers hooked. It's absolutely necessary that we stop the ch arade that kills 37,000 Canadians a year. Why is it not good legislation?

Plain and simple, it doesn't go far enough. We should be introducing legislation that calls for a ban on all flavourings, similar to what Alberta has done. We should be hearing what the Quebec coalition is saying: ban all

June 3, 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 33 new tobacco products, period. We should be talking about much more robust licensing system for the sale of tobacco products with a goal of reducing the availability of these products, not making them more attractive and not making them more readily available. What we have before us is one more diversion created by an industry that are masters of illusion. Let's talk about the kids. No, let's talk about the adults. Someone said that best practice is the best of our e xperience and the best of our science. What does our experience tell us?

Let me start by sharing a little of my own experience. For 15 years I worked with the Canadian Cancer Society, and the last 12 years I have worked for MANTRA, the Manitoba Tobacco Reduction Alliance. Why? Because I have seen first -hand the effects of tobacco use and it is disturbing. I would like to zero in on one person, his name is Stan, a very good friend of mine who was a smoker. He never went anywhere without two packs of cigarettes. He was 58 years old when he had his first stroke; it partially paralyzed his right side.

With hours of rehabilitation and personal perseverance, he was able to regain most of what he had lost through that stroke, but he continued to smoke. Less than two years later he was out blowing the snow in his front yard and again, a stroke , that severely paralyzed his right side. He dragged himself into his house because he lived by himself, just inching his way up there little bit at a time. When he was released from the hospital, he managed to walk with a cane, had little or no use of his right arm and was unable to put sentences together. In November of that year, he was diagnosed with lung cancer.

Just before he died, I went to see him. He was a big barrel -chested man lying there with tubes up his nose and struggling for every breath. I said, Stan, how are you? All he could say were these three words: can't breathe, drowning. His funeral was July 16th, 1998, and I gave the eulogy. * (19:30) I wish I could say it ended there, but it didn't and it hasn't. Every day in this country others are suffering the same fate because of smoking and an industry that refuses to say enough and governments who allow them to carry on as if nothing is happening.

Last week I was speaking with smokers who want to quit and who work in one of the largest workplaces here in the city. I see the same things. I see the woman who just got back to work after losing a lung to cancer because of smoking. She's a two -pack-a-day–or I also see the woman who is–whose husband is dying of COPD. She's a two-pack-a-day smoker; she spends $200 a week to feed that habit, and they can't quit. We could fill the entire grounds of this Legislature with individuals and families with similar stories.

I am sure most of you are, if not all of you, could tell us of some of the ones that you know about. When does our experience tell us it's time to say enough? When will we have heard enough of the tobacco industry's specious arguments, enough of their trying to make something attractive that is essentially ugly? The best of our science: 2014 marks the 50th anniversary of the Surgeon General's report. In 1964, it laid bare the truth about smoking. That's 50 years ago. Since then 31 of its annual reports have dealt with smoking and health. The evidence continues to mount in spite of all of that.

This year they, again, causally linked nine new chronic diseases and two new cancer sites to smoking. The report is entitled The Health Consequences of Smoking-50 Years of Progress. It provides evidence from 2010-2011, was compiled by top–75 experts in the United States, reviewed by 100 of their peers. One

section is entitled, Ending the tobacco epidemic in the United States, and it looks at what they call the end-game strategies that would achieve a 'ciety' that is free of tobacco -related death and disease, and in addition to using the existing evidence -based measures that we have in place, they suggest two things: (1) reducing nicotine content to make cigarettes l ess addictive, and we could start doing that gradually and moving it down; (2) greater restrictions on sales, particularly at the local level– and I highlighted these words –including bans on category–on whole categories of tobacco products.

What you're expecting –or looking at today is not something unusual. The Surgeon General is saying this is something United States could look at. How much science do we need before we say this has gone on long enough? I'm urging you to totally ban all flavoured tobaccos as a first step. Every time we have left loopholes in the legislation, the tobacco industry has found a way to circumvent the law. Leave no exemptions, make no exceptions. Don't listen to industry's cry that we have always had flavoured tobacco. Look at the big picture.

Tobacco products cause disease and death, and any attempt to make them more palatable should be met with strong resistance. Thank you.

34 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 3, 2014 Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Gibson. Do members of the committee have any questions for? Hon. Sharon Blady (Minister of Healthy Living and Seniors): Murray, I just–I want to thank you for being here today. I want to thank you for a very passionate presentation and, again, the hard work that you and everyone at MANTRA does to reduce tobacco use in Manitoba. And I value the partnership that we have with you in terms of the –making a difference in reducing tobacco use, and I believe your stories, you know, what you told us today was really evidence of that.

I know that we're working together to expand the sm oking cessation in vulnerable populations project to more workplaces throughout the province. And, again, I want to also thank you for lending your resources and expertise to assist smokers to quit in the workplace through the healthy workplace campaign, the Wellness Works campaign and, again, I really do want to thank for your continued efforts and your passion and your dedication in being here tonight and I thank you for what I believe you taught us all tonight. Hon.

Jon Gerrard (River Heights): I just –you're very passionate about not having these two exemptions for menthol and for flavoured chewing tobacco. Just repeat that once more for me. [interjection] Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Gibson, kindly– Mr. Gibson: Sorry, my apologies. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. Mr. Gibson: Make no exemptions, make no exceptions. I ended up by saying that, basically, tobacco products cause disease and death, and any attempt to make them more palatable should be met with strong resistance.

I say that because this is not just about children and whether or not they'll be lured into smoking; it's about people continuing to smoke because the products have been made more palatable to them. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. Mr. Cliff Graydon (Emerson): Thank you very much for your presenta tion, Mr. Gibson. It was certainly done with a great deal of passion. I'm wondering if –what your opinion would be of the e-cigarette being used as a tool. Is that a useful tool for people that want to quit smoking? [interjection] Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Gibson, kindly be recognized. Sorry about that. Mr.

Gibson: It is not recommended at this time through Health Canada. It has not been tested or properly proven, and there is really no controls on the marketplace, and that should cause us all serious concern. N icotine is a controlled product through Health Canada, and they need to move forward and put some better controls in place, and I think they are probably watching the FDA in the United States to see what they're going to do. Mr. Graydon: Thank you. And we re–the next question, I guess, would be: Mr. Gibson, were you consulted on this bill prior to the drafting? [interjection] Mr. Chairperson: Mr.

Gibson, kindly be recognized before you speak, through the Chair. Yes, Mr. Gibson, go ahead. Mr. Gibson: Mr. Ch air, no, I was not formally consulted on this. I was aware that this piece of legislation was coming up, but I was not formally consulted, and I didn't expect to be. Mr. Vice-Chairperson in the Chair Mr. Graydon: Could you tell us why you would think that menthol was omitted in this bill? Mr. Gibson: I think the–my conclusion can only be that we are willing to pander to the tobacco industry who will say these products have been around for a long time. Tobacco's been around for a long time.

We need to start somewhere, and maybe we just need to start, as the Surgeon General's reports say, cutting whole categories of these products, and that includes menthol, in my mind. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: No further questions? Seeing none, thank you for your presentation, sir. Call Mr. Ken Guilford, private citizen. Mr. Guilford, do you have any written materials for the committee, sir? Mr. Ken Guilford (Private Citizen): No, I do not. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: You may proceed. Mr. Guilford: Okay. Thank you. What I would say is I'm deadly against this bill.

I do not like it, do not want it, and I'm sure my buddy Robbie Ford would not like it either. And I apologize for the last –I'm too loud again. My voice carries. It's hard, but what I'm

June 3, 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 35 saying is that we don't need this, with tobacco, here. I was smoking, okay, and I used to smoke one year and quit the next year, and go on and on and on. I went to the hospital there, and I started smoking because people would offer me cigarettes and all that. When I got back into Lions Manor, where I did live, and now I live on Kirby, what I would–live now–sorry. What I would like to say that the manager, one of the managers there, and she come out and saw me on the picnic table.

She come out of Lions Manor, and she says, Ken, you know you're not allowed to smoke in here. Well, I said, what? Didn't happen to those other people. What about them? Why can they get up and smoke? And so why can't I join in? No, you can't do that. Grandfather clause. You know, that's the same as the bill. Out the door, out the door. And that's about it. Thank you very much. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Guilford. Floor is open for questions. Ms. Blady: Mr. Guilford, I would just like to thank you, Ken, for coming out this evening and for your active participation in the democratic process.

So thank you for coming out. Floor Comment: May I say something? Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Mr. Guilford. Mr. Guilford: Thank you. What I would like to say not only this evening– I've been here every evening. I've been here every bill. I spoke on every bill. How can I do that? No, it does not take a lot of knowledge. All you have to do is look at the first [inaudible] paragraph and look at that and see where you are. Either that or there is a resolution,

be it resolved. But then you can have the passion. We can talk or not. But when it comes to a government of Manitoba bill, wow. I can't believe you go through that whole thing. But , on a bill like this, where I'm firmly against it, it's easy for me to stand up and say that I am firmly against it and talk about whatever. But you're not here for all night, I'm sure, this last night, I hope, and I'm tired about doing it. Back to the city again. * (19:40) Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Seeing no further questions, Mr. Guilford, thank you for your presentation. Call Mr. Mel Hinds, private citizen. Mr.

Hinds, do you have any written materials for the committee, sir? I see you do. Our staff will distribute them. You may begin when ready. Mr. Mel Hinds (Private Citizen): Good evening, Chair and committee members. My name is Mel Hinds. I own Thomas Hinds Tobacconist and Hinds Brothers Tobacco. We're based in Winnipeg. I'm born and raised in Winnipeg, and I'm here to represent that company. I'm going to approach this a little bit differently . I'm going to ask if you could read the information I presented, and I'd rather have questions asked of me after you've read this three pages.

So, I'll give you the time to go through that, and then if you have any questions of me, I'd be happy to answer. Ms. Blady: I just wanted to state that our normal procedure would be –if there was a written submission, that would come in separately. For example, we have a couple that are in there. We usually elect to have them included in it. So, by asking us to read it like this, it would not have your words reflected on the record. I would ask that the committee, in light of the request that Mr. Hinds has made, is–can I make a motion to the Chair to–no–can I–sorry–that's–I–[interjection] thank you for that.

Can we ask –can I ask for leave so that his written presentation be put into the record for the purposes of the Hansard? Mr. Vice- Chairperson: Is it agreeable to the committee that Mr. Hinds' written presentation go into our Hansard record as is? Is that agreed? [Agreed] Dear Members of the Committee, I am Mel Hinds. I own Thomas Hinds Tobacconist Ltd., which is located in Winnipeg on 185 Carlton Street opposite the Convention Centre. We have been at the same location for almost 25 years and I have been in the tobacco business a lot longer than that.

I know it well and would like to share some of my experience with you in respect of Bill 52. Let me start by saying that the tobacco industry is not all the same. There is a big difference between cigarettes and premium cigars and pipe tobacco. The products are different; the suppliers are different; the pricing is different; the customers are different; and the marketing is different. I can describe the differences best by describing our retail store to you. Our retail store is a tobacconist shop. It only sells tobacco and accessories. 89% of our sales consist of

36 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 3, 2014 top quality tobacco products, which are mainly cigars and pipe tobacco and 11% of our sales comprise traditional accessories. We stock cigarettes but do not promote or display them. They make up only 1% of our sales. Our cigar prices range from $2.00 - $95.00 per cigar. Most cigar sales are in the range of $10.00 - $40.00 per cigar. However, some of our premium brand cigars are unique and will sell for much more. Like wine, aging and blending creates unique tastes making them very desirable and collectible.

The people who purchase them will store and age them to further enhance the flavours. I have re -sold some of these cigars through Sotheby's of England f or local clients, in one case getting ten thousand dollars for a box of ten cigars and in another getting thirty -three thousand dollars for a box of 50 cigars. Smokers of premium cigars generally do not inhale the smoke. For them, smoking is all about savouring the aroma and tasting the flavour on the tongue, on the pallet of the mouth and in the nose. These products are all about flavour.

They are not the flavours that Bill 52 had in mind as appealing to children, but the fact is that some of these cig ars have added flavours that Bill 52 would ban from Manitoba. Pipe tobacco is even more of a problem when it comes to flavoured tobacco products. Thomas Hinds Tobacconist sells a very high quality traditional pipe tobacco or loose tobacco. This tobacco mak es up 25% of our sales. 80% of this tobacco has flavour added and has been produced in this way for well over 100 years. Under Bill 52, it would be banned as a "flavoured tobacco product".

Our clients consist of a mature group of adults who want choice and quality in the tobacco product they wish to purchase. (This is the same concept as purchasing a fine bottle of wine). When we opened in 1991 the scene in downtown Winnipeg was quite bleak with vacancies everywhere. Very few business people were willing to step up and take the risk to open a business downtown back then. I had faith in Winnipeg that if I built a unique high-end store in downtown Winnipeg that the people would come, they would support this store. They did and they continue to do so.

We have g rown to be a destination store not only serving the people working and living downtown but also drawing people from the suburbs to our downtown location so they can enjoy the unique and pleasurable experience we offer. We are listed in Tourism Winnipeg along with other upscale businesses such as the Velvet Glove and 529 Wellington as a go to Winnipeg destination. We are a tourist destination catering to sport fishermen, touring musicians, actors, all kinds of people in the entertainment industry, politician s, business people on the move and tourists in general.

We have also been recognized in a European Trade Magazine as being one of the top ten stores on the planet based on our selection, service, product knowledge and decor. We have an international reputation that you might not associate with a Winnipeg-based store. The fact is that our Winnipeg operation is more than just retail store; it is the head office for our wholesale tobacco business and international cigar manufacturing business, which operates under the trade name Hinds Brothers Tobacco.

We have created and produced a premium line of cigars - one of which has been recognized as the best in the world - by the Cigar Aficionado Magazine - the bible of the cigar industry and sister magazine to the Wine Spectator published in New York City. The first and only Canadian to do so, I might add. A tear sheet from the Cigar Aficionado Magazine reporting that scoring for our Thomas Hinds Honduran Selection brand is attached to this presentation. We sell our c igars and pipe tobacco wholesale throughout the world.

In Canada we have wholesale licenses from seven provincial governments and an excise bonded warehouse licence from the federal government. We are a designated wholesale tax collector in seven provinces in Canada, a tax collector for the Federal Government and are authorized by the Government of Canada to apply duty paid customs stamps. We don't just supply tobacco products within Manitoba; we supply tobacco products nationally from Winnipeg. None of thi s business involves selling flavoured cigarettes to children. Nothing like that is involved in the market that I am serving.

Our store is accessible only to adults 18 years of age and older. A sign posted on our entrance door clearly states this and is vig ilantly enforced by the staff. I do not sell anything else that might entice children into our store, like food products, snacks, drinks or lottery tickets. Because of this, The Non-Smokers Health Protection Act and its

June 3, 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 37 regulations currently exempt our store from the prohibitions against smoking in enclosed public places and the display and advertising of tobacco products in store. We are a highly regulated, legitimate business and in all our history we have never been cited for any violation of a tobacco l aw or regulation. My store has worked with the RCMP to identify bootleg Cuban tobacco products being smuggled and sold illegally. I know the extent of competition from illegal distribution that we already face.

If Bill 52 does not give me an exemption from the ban on flavoured tobacco products, my ability to carry on business in Winnipeg will be seriously affected. The products and services that I am providing are uniquely available through my store. If I close operations, the only available alternatives would be illegal. Thomas Hinds Tobacconist is a good corporate citizen known for our honesty and integrity. I was born and raised in Winnipeg and I continue to make my home in Winnipeg because I still believe it is a good place to make an honest living and r aise a family.

It would be a shame for our clients: doctors, lawyers, business people, police, firefighters and people from all walks of life from the Province of Manitoba to be denied adult choices in their home province of Manitoba as an unintended consequence of Bill 52. Thomas Hinds Tobacconist needs an exemption for flavoured tobacco to prevent this from happening. Thank you. Mr. Vice- Chairperson: Mr. Hinds, you have the floor for the remaining amount of your time to speak freely. Mr. Hinds: Well, I wanted this document on record. I'm hoping you'll all read it. I'm allotted 10 minutes; I'll give you the time to read it.

If you have any questions for me, I'd be happy to answer. If you don't have any questions of me–I'm hoping that you'll find something in there that you might. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Okay, if that's the extent of your oral presentation then I'm going to open the floor to questions. Mr. Graydon: Thanks for your written presentation, Mr. Hinds, and thanks for taking the time to come in. The question I have is, the bill, as it is –has been drafted, bans the sale of flavoured tobacco, but I could buy unflavoured tobacco from you and add my own flavouring, could I not? Mr.

Hinds: Yes, if you wanted to take it home and add chocolate syrup to it, you're more than welcome to do that. We don't suggest that. We don't offer that service in our store, and you're ruining a fine tobacco in doing that, on top of it. Mr. Graydon: Thanks for that, but I –and the reason I asked that question is my father -in-law was a Copenhagen man, but he always had to put a few drops of brandy in it, and he didn't think that he ruined it all with that brandy.

So I'm suggesting, if we're banding–if w e're banning a flavoured tobacco or a flavoured cigarette, is it possible that an individual that wants that flavouring will buy a flavour and do that on their own? Mr. Hinds: Your question is if somebody bought some tobacco and wanted to take it home and add flavouring to it, would they do that? I have no idea. I don't know what people do in their private homes, to be honest with you. Your guess is as good as mine. I don't–I operate out of my store. That's my realm. What people do when they leave the stor e, I have no idea. It's a hard question to answer.

I'm sorry I can't answer it any better than that. Mr. Graydon: The question is, is it possible to do? I'm not suggesting that people do it, but is it possible to do that? Mr. Hinds: Is it possible to add ketchup to chips? Yes, it's possible. Now, anything's possible if you want to do it. You know, I –how am I supposed to answer that? That's a tough one. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Any further questions? Ms.

Blady: Well, I'd like to thank you, Mel, for coming out today and the detail of your presentation here, and I know that you have already had–we've already had the chance to meet and that you have spoken to Andrew from my department a number of times, but I really do appreciate you taking the time to come out today to address the committee and to answer the interesting array of questions put forward to you. So I –your input and your sense of humour and decorum are appreciated. Mr.

Gerrard: Just–you've mentioned the concern about contraband tobacco, and have you any suggestions to the committee about measures that could be taken to reduce contraband tobacco? [interjection]

38 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 3, 2014 Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Mr. Hinds, I have to recognize you. I'm sorry. Mr. Hinds: Sorry. Contraband is a $2 -billion-plus industry in Ontario alo ne. If you think it's not going to be a problem, you're kidding yourselves. It's controlled now and you have controls in place now. If you dismantle those, there's a potential –I'm not – you know, I don't have any hard facts. I've been in the business for 30 years. I have a good idea what it's all about. There's a good potential that contraband could surface in Manitoba if all flavour's taken off the market.

It's too tempting for the criminal element. The spread, $3–I'll give you an example. Fifty grams of p ipe tobacco cost $3. At the consumer level, it's 50. That's a lot of room for the –for money to be made on contraband. What could happen– and I have no hard facts. I'm not as polished as some of the previous people, but I have been in business for 30 years and I completely understand it at all levels. The very thing that you're trying to protect–I'm going to leave it at that. I'm not going to go any further. I hope I answered your questions as well as I could. Mr.

Vice-Chairperson: Seeing no further questions, sir, I thank you for your presentation. Call Mr. Ken Dalton, Thomas Hinds Tobacconist Limited. Mr. Dalton, do you have any written materials for the committee, sir? Mr. Ken Dalton (Thomas Hinds Tobacconist Ltd.): I do. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Our staff will distribute them. You may begin when ready. Mr. Dalton: I represent Thomas Hinds Tobacconist. Mel Hinds just gave you some presentation on his experience in the industry.

One would think from listening to some of the earlier presentations that came before me that the issue for debate here is whether tobacco is good or bad. I'm not here to debate that point. I'm here to speak in favour of regulation and controlled distribution methods. Basically, the system that is in place now of tight regulation and, basically, high taxes is designed to reduce tobacco consumption. If all that were necessary to abolish the use of tobacco were to ban it, then I don't think I'd have anything more to say here to anyone.

I don't believe that works and I don't know whether t he rest of you do or not, but the existing distribution systems that we have are based on regulation. Mr. Chairperson in the Chair * (19:50) Thomas Hinds Tobacconist is just a tobacconist. Having said that, it is not only a retail tobacco shop; it is a wholesale operation, a manufacturer of cigars and an importer. It doesn't sell anything except tobacco and tobacco accessories. Eighty per cent of the pipe tobacco that it sells is flavoured. It would all be banned under the current definition of flavoured tobacco products under the Bill 52.

The problem with that is that the pipe tobacco also constitutes about 25 per cent of its sales. That would be enough to kill the profit and essentially put it out of business. I don't know whether it would adapt to this in some other fashion, but it's not selling snacks and foodstuff. It doesn't have anything else to push like lottery tickets. It sells tobacco. It's relatively unique in the province. It doesn't sell a lot of cigarettes; less than 1 per cent of its products. It sells premium, hand-rolled cigars and pipe tobacco.

Now, the problem with the definition of flavoured tobacco product under Bill 52 is simply that it includes in the definition any tobacco product that has an aroma or taste other than t obacco that is apparent either before or during use. Virtually all of the cigars that are sold–and the pipe tobacco as well– by Thomas Hinds Tobacconist is sold because of its flavour. People are not buying these cigars at $40 or $90 or $1,000 a cigar because they are addicted to nicotine. You can get a fix much cheaper through cigarettes. They are buying it because of the flavour. It's a subtle flavour.

People buy it because they like it. You may think that this is a bad thing, but that's what they're doing. The question is whether they should be continued –they should be allowed to continue doing that. So the choice in the particular case of my client is whether they would be continue –or allowed to continue in business to sell to adults only. The nature of their tobacconist shop is such that minors are simply not admitted at the premises. There's a sign on the door, not allowed in. Strictly enforced. And that's a requirement of their status under

section 71 of the–or 7.1 of The Non- Smokers Health Protection Act regulations that specifically name them, one of two that have the exemption under the act for the – against the prohibition to not promote or display in the store. And the reason for that is fairly simple: there are no minors in that store to be induce d to smoke anything. The fact that some of their products have got flavouring in them is not going to induce

June 3, 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 39 any minor to buy them from them, because they can't. They can't even get into the store. We're proposing an amendment to the definition of flavoured tobacco product to add to the exemptions that are listed–or the exceptions, I should say. Currently , the products that are proposed for exception are snuff, chewing tobacco and menthol tobacco product. We would prefer to see, either as an addition to those or a substitution for them, pipe tobacco or a cigar prescribed by the regulations.

The reason for introducing the notion of having a cigar prescribed by the regulations is simply to avoid the most usual criticism of the Tobacco Act that its def inition of a little cigar led to abuses. We would be quite happy to leave that up to the minister's discretion to ensure that the prescribed characteristics didn't move and allow for abuse. What we're looking for is an exemption or an exception for hand-rolled, premium cigars. These are not run off of a conveyer with a –or out of a machine with a filter attached to them.

These are very traditional cigars, and that's what Thomas Hinds Tobacconist sells, along with pipe tobacco. Pipe tobacco's a little eas ier to define and provide an exception for because its distinctive from–as a tobacco product. You have very few –or very little evidence that the young people are attracted to pipe smoking. The experience of our client is that the demand for pipe tobacco comes from a –strictly a mature –not just an adult, but a mature adult market interested in the traditional methods of smoking. We're not talking about hookah pipes or anything like that.

This is very traditional flavoured tobacco and the fashion that –it's bee n around for at least a hundred years. We're not certainly adding flavours of cherries or candy to this kind of product. The other proposal that we have for an exception to the prohibition is to suggest that the exception that's put in the bill right now as an amendment to add 6.5(2), be amended to read as follows: subsection (1) does not apply to (

a) a tobacconist shop prescribed for the purposes of that subsection; and (

b) a person who gives a flavoured tobacco product to any other person if the gift is intended solely for use in a traditional Aboriginal spiritual or cultural practice or ceremony. So the words we're proposing to add are: a tobacconist shop prescribed for the purpose of that subsection. This is a formula that already works in connection with the act under the prohibition at

section 7.1 for display and promotion of products. Thomas Hinds Tobacconist is named under that regulation, and it's a control mechanism that allows for the minister to ensure that they know who is trafficking in these substances. If you–if the intention is to control them and regulate them, this is an ideal method of doing so. It's the alternative to prohibition which, in our humble opinion, does not work.

The other point that I would like to make is that the curren t draft of Bill 52, the prohibition in it in 6.5(1) now reads that: no person shall supply or offer to supply a flavoured tobacco product to any other person. The wholesale business of Thomas Hinds Tobacconist sells from– Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Dalton, just one second, sorry. We have only a minute left, so kindly ensure that you are finished within that time. Thank you very much. Mr. Dalton: The wholesale operation of Thomas Hinds Tobacconist is unique in the province.

We know of no other wholesaler that br ings tobacco products into Winnipeg and distributes them across the country from here. The wording as proposed in Bill 52 would prohibit the sale from Winnipeg to another province of tobacco product –flavoured tobacco product. So it goes far beyond consumpt ion of flavoured tobacco products in Manitoba. That's an additional reason why we're requesting an exception for the particular operations of Thomas Hinds Tobacconist. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much. Now, thank you for the presentation. Members of committee, any questions? Ms. Blady: Thank you, again, Mr. Dalton.

I want to, again, thank you for your time to come out here and present, taking the time to do so and the thoroughness of your explanation. I do appreciate the fact that you have–along wi th your colleague, Mr. Hinds, met with me before –and, again, I appreciate the insight that you bring to–and your in–and the input that you bring tonight. Hon. Andrew Swan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Yes, thank you for your presentation. I just want to look –you got –you've proposed an amendment to

section 1(1), the flavoured tobacco product, and in there you propose adding the words pipe tobacco or a cigar prescribed in the regulations. Just to clarify, are you suggesting that the term prescr ibed by the regulations should

40 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 3, 2014 apply to all of these things, to cigars, or to cigars and pipe tobacco? Mr. Dalton: Our recommendation is that it apply only to modify cigars. * (20:00) Mr. Graydon: I want to thank you for your presentation tonight, Mr. C uddy [phonetic], but I – and I do have a comment, a couple of comments on your amendments. They're very well -thought-out amendments. Were you consulted on these prior to the drafting of the legislation? Mr. Dalton: No, we were not. Mr.

Graydon: Well, I would suggest that both of your amendments are very well thought out and certainly bear looking into a lot further. Mr. Dalton: Thank you very much for this opportunity to make the presentation too. Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): There's an axiom in law that you are probably aware of when it comes to making legislation, that there's the unintended consequences of legislation.

There are probably many good reasons to support legislation like this, but is it your view that you and your client are perhaps the unintended negative consequence of legislation that might be intended at a good thing, that somehow the legislation has caught you by accident, that it wasn't intended at you and it wasn't directed at your client and there are probably ways to maintain the spirit of the legislation while still protecting the business of your client? Mr. Dalton: We have no idea whether we were intended or not.

We've seen no evidence to indicate that the purpose of the legislation was aimed at our client or the business that our client–the segment of the business that our client is in. The proposals that we have made are intended, though, to keep with the spirit as we understand it to be in the act in that we certainly do support the notion that children should not be made the target of marketing tobacco. It's not appropriate under any circumstances. Mr. Gerrard: You have the experience with this business.

One of the concerns that many have raised is the contraband tobacco because it gets into the hands of kids and so on. Can you give us any advice in decreasing the contraband tobacco that's available? Mr. Dalton: The best advice that we can give you is to maintain well -regulated alternative distribution channels. Our experience has been that that is the most effective way of combatting contraband or elicit traffic because it doesn't drive the customers into the hands of the outlaws who–once it's outlawed, you basically have lost any ability to control any aspect of it, so. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. Mr.

Graydon: I just want to apologize for not calling you by your name but by your company name. I apologize for that, Mr. Dalton. Thank you. Mr. Dalton: Thank your very much. We appreciate this opportunity to do it, make a presentation to the committee. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Dalton. Now I request Margaret Bernhardt-Lowdon. Thank you very much. Material for distribution? Yes, kindly go ahead and distribute it. Go ahead with your presentation, ma'am. Thank you. Ms. Margaret Bernhardt -Lowdon (Manitoba Lung Association): Good evening, Mr.

Chair, honourable ministers and members of the committee. My name is Margaret Bernhardt -Lowdon–horrible name to pronounce, regret it, but what can you do. I want to thank you for having me come here tonight. And on behalf of the Manitoba Lung Association, our board and our staff, I just like to share a few of our thoughts with you on this bill. The Manitoba Lung Association is a non -profit, registered health organization, and we've served the people in Manitoba for over 110 years. And during that time we've made our best effort to prevent lung disease and help people manage it better.

Our tag line–and I don't know if you've heard it, but our tag line is: When You Can't Breathe, Nothing Else Matters. And that really forms the basis of everything that we do, our mission and our vision. We're part of a larger organization, as well, that tackles things like this. And, again, our primary focus is preventing lung disease and helping people cope. In Manitoba right now we have 284,000 peopl e suffering with lung disease, so one in five Manitobans.

June 3, 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 41 We've always strongly supported policies and laws that protect our children, our youth and our teens from tobacco use, and we do believe that Bill 52 will achieve this by prohibiting the sale or s upply of flavoured tobacco and by repealing the exemption that allows a parent to provide tobacco to his or her child in a non- public space. I was quite astounded that that was still on the books, so I'm glad that you're looking at that. And now, while this amendment will go a long way to protecting our children, we think it could be stretched.

We think it could go just a little bit further. We would recommend that this amendment be expanded to include prohibiting the sale or the supply of menthol tobacco products, snuff and chewing tobacco. We believe that removing these exemptions will make a more significant impact on reducing the effects of tobacco on lung health.

Tobacco remains the leading cause of preventable disease and death in Manitoba, and all type of flavoured tobacco, including menthol tobacco, chocolate, cherry, whatever you want to flavour it with, they cause devastating and fatal illnesses, and 80 per cent of diseases like COPD and lung cancer are caused by smoking. Now, I'm not telling you anything you don't know. Everyone in this room knows that tobacco is a dangerous product, and I think it's important that we put in controls into place for that.

And at the Manitoba Lung Association, when we're talking about flavour tobacco, we really do believe that lung disease, lung cancer and other chronic diseases should not come in a candy wrapper. So we applaud you on this legislation. Flavoured tobacco products are designed by the tobacco industry with the goal to specifically appeal to youth.

According to the Physicians for a Smoke Free Canada, flavours grab the attention of youth and make them more likely to want to experiment with commercial tobacco, especially when they're packaged in colourful, attractive wrappers that resemble candy or a kid-friendly product. And tobacco companies, keep in mind they have to continue to reinvent these products to attack youth because they're losing their buyers in a larger percentage every year as they die from things like lung disease.

By using marketing tac tics and finding loopholes in existing legislation, the tobacco industry is able to attract new young customers. And flavoured tobacco products have the same negative health complications as unflavoured tobacco products. They're just as addictive despi te the deceiving candy flavours, the colorful packaging and the catchy slogans. As previously stated, the Lung Association believes that a ban on menthol flavoured tobacco products should be included in this bill; one -in-four Manitoba youth who use tobacc o smoke menthol cigarettes–and I think we've heard that already tonight.

In comparison, menthol cigarettes represent less than 5 per cent in adult use. One thing that hasn't been said tonight is that menthol is a little bit worse in some cases than other f lavours, it's very insidious. What menthol does is it reduces the harshness of tobacco so you don't cough as much so you want to smoke. It helps you–it actually facilitates you to take deeper breathes so you inhale more. It also enhances nicotine absorption, so now you get more of the chemical in you. So keep in mind when you're talking about menthol, that's what we're talking about.

And, unfortunately, we still have a lot of work to do because menthol flavoured tobacco products are popular, and the newer f lavoured products like cherry and grape and chocolate are gaining popularly all the time. Manitoba's worked very hard to reduce smoking rates, especially among young people, and although smoking rates in Manitoba are declining, they're still too high. According to the Propel Centre for Population Health Impact, 14 per cent of our youth smoke on a regular basis–we're talking about kids that are 15 to 19–compared the national average of 11.8. So we're at 14, most of Canada is at 11.8.

And according to the most recent youth smoking survey, 45 per cent of youth who've used tobacco in the last 30 days use some form of flavoured tobacco. * (20:10) Tobacco use remains the leading cause of premature death in Manitoba. It results in over 1,500 deaths a year. My father died of it, my mother died of it, my father -in-law died of it, all because of smoking. That's why I think we ne ed to address this legislation. It's imperative that we take the necessary steps to reduce the social, the medical and the economic costs of tobacco use by our kids.

So, in conclusion, the Manitoba Lung Association, we recognize and commend the provincial government for having made great strides to reduce tobacco use in Manitoba. We firmly

42 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 3, 2014 believe that you, and Manitobans, understand that we all have a role to play in protecting our children and protecting our communities and making sure that our kids grow up healthy and well. So, by enacting Bill 52, another important step will be made to help our youth. Now, while this bill will help p rotect our youth from getting introduced to tobacco, the Manitoba Lung Association calls on our government to go just a little bit further. How about you include a ban on flavoured chewing tobacco and snuff and menthol-flavoured products? Add that to Bill 52.

Removing the current exemptions from the bill will make a more significant impact on reducing tobacco-related disease and death. And, ultimately, I know that it's going to protect more Manitobans today and in the future from significant and well-understood risks of tobacco. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Bernhardt-Lowdon for your presentation. The committee, any questions? Ms. Blady: I just want to thank you, Margaret, for coming out tonight.

I know we've had the opportunity to, again, do some announcements together, some exciting work that you're doing, and I'm really appreciative of the partnership that we have with the Manitoba Lung Association. It's those partnerships li ke the Manitoba Quits, the quit and win contest that we've done together, the NOT –Not on Tobacco program, and Nic -O-Time project, are really helping Manitobans of all ages kick the habit, or steer clear of tobacco in the first place. And, I really want to thank you for the great work that you do, and I really look forward to our continued partnership. Thank you. Mr.

Graydon: I want to thank you as well, Margaret, for your presentation tonight. And the–one of the questions I'd like to ask is: Were you con sulted in –during the drafting of the bill? [interjection] Mr. Chairperson: Kindly be recognized. Yes, Ms. Bernhardt-Lowdon. Ms. Bernhardt -Lowdon: Not specifically for this bill but we have consulted with the Province in the past on similar items, but not for this specific one. Mr. Graydon: I certainly applaud you when you talk about not wanting young people to get involved in smoking. What would your definition of young people be? Ms.

Bernhardt-Lowdon: Well, the children that we deal with in the core area of the city, they start at eight. So, for me, we have to start before that. Mr. Graydon: Well, I applaud you in your work. And the reason I ask that was because, in today's world, in any tobacco shop, you have to be 18 years old to buy the tobacco. But if we're going to ban the sale of a specialty tobacco, that doesn't mean that the other cigarettes aren't there. What would you say, or what do you think would stop the children at eight and 10 years old from getting the cigarettes–the other cigarettes that aren't flavoured? Ms.

Bernhardt-Lowdon: I think tougher legislation might have to be put into effect. I think organizations like us and Manitoba Healthy Living, we educate the children about tobacco and the marketing that is used so that they can avoid it. But, I guess that's why we really want to focus on the flavoured tobacco, because we've got these eight-year-olds starting now, and maybe they don't get exposed to the flavoured tobacco, but once that comes, they'll be no stopping it. And that's what– Mr. Chairperson: Dr. Gerrard. Mr. Gerrard: You made a pretty strong case for not having the exemption for menthol.

We heard earlier on that there were something like 50 per cent of the flavoured- tobacco products were menthol. And, so the legislation, a s it stands now, only does 50 per cent of the work. Would you– I mean, why would the current bill exempt 50 per cent of the flavoured tobacco? Can you help me understand this? Ms. Bernhardt-Lowdon: I don't know. I'm sorry, I really don't know why it wouldn't. I think it should. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Graydon, do you want to ask a question? Mr. Graydon: No, that's fine. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation.

And now we will request Tessa Bortoluzzi. Thank you. Do you have any material for the committee? Ms. Tessa Bortoluzzi (Manitoba SWAT – Students Working Against Tobacco): No, I do not.

June 3, 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 43 Mr. Chairperson: Okay. Then kindly go ahead with your presentation. Ms. Bortoluzzi : Hello, everyone. I am Tessa Bortoluzzi. First and foremost, I would like to thank all of you for having us here today. Secondly, I would like to ask my presentation to be joined by a couple of my fellow Manitoba SWAT members. I would like to ask leave of the committee for this to be allowed. Mr. Chairperson: Please hold on. Okay. Is there leave of the committee for the presentation with – [Agreed] Thank you. Go ahead. Ms.

Bortoluzzi : We are students from West Kildonan Collegiate and are part of a group called Manitoba SWAT, which stands for Students Working Against Tobacco. SWAT is a student group run by a teacher, Ms. Harder, and what we do is make presentations to middle schools and high schools encouraging kids to not smoke. Our school was the start of the original SWAT team. Our smoking prevention and education presentation is an hour in length and has many components that educate, gross out and inform kids about the harmful effects of smoking. The reason we are here today is we represent the voices of the youth.

We are the faces of the consumers the tobacco products–the tobacco industry is marketing in creating flavoured tobacco products, and we would like our voices heard as to why we think the sale of flavoured tobacco products is a bad thing. Manitoba SWAT's existence, our presentations, are one small way that youth are fighting the harmful effects and fighting back against tobacco usage. As youth, we recognize the harmful effects of tobacco and work hard to promote a healthy lifestyle amongst the youth. The sale of flavoured tobacco products is a step back for the work we do. Ms.

Erin Andrushuk (Manitoba SWAT – Students Working Against Tobacco ): I am Erin Andrushuk. So, even though cigarette -like candies have been banned by FDA, our local youth are still using flavoured cigarettes, c igarillos and smokeless tobacco products. Tobacco industries claim they are not marketing towards the youth, but what adult is going to go out and buy a product that looks like it belongs in a child's lunch kit? And, also, not to mention the different flav ours that it comes in, like chocolate, cherry, and grape, which also appeal to youth.

So why do we still have these products on the shelves if it's more appealing to youth itself? So, ultimately, the companies are sugar -coating it with the packages and t he bright slogans and the bright colours and the flavours and making it look more innocent than it really is. But, truthfully, it is actually–in the future, it can be the

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	40-3-ju2
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	40th 3rd hansardpdf ju2.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	cc7a9cd3dffb0525c3c0e43cf68efb7a8360d35a

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).