Regarding: Bill C-31, Part 4, Division 12 — Tobacco and Vaping Products Act
Submitted by: Maria Papaioannoy Founder, Rights 4 Vapers
September 2026
Senators,
My name is Maria Papaioannoy, founder of Rights 4 Vapers. I have spent years advocating for people who smoke, people who vape and people trying to leave cigarettes behind. I know the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act, especially the “V”, extremely well. I have lived it, worked with it, argued about it and watched what happens when policies written in Ottawa hit people on the ground.
I had hoped to share this perspective with you in person, and I am deeply disappointed that I was not given that opportunity. But this is bigger than me not being invited to present. What I find difficult to understand is how legislation that directly affects Canadians can be examined without ensuring the people who actually use these products are represented as stakeholders.
The government, government-funded NGOs, researchers and both the tobacco and vaping industries have been given a voice in these hearings. All of those perspectives have a place in this discussion, but so do the perspectives of people who smoke, people who vape, people who formerly smoked and people who have switched to other nicotine products. We are the people who live with the consequences of these policies once the meetings are over and the regulations leave Ottawa. Our lived experience does not replace science, research or public health expertise, but it adds to it.
What makes the absence of consumer representation particularly disappointing is that Health Canada’s own legislative reviews demonstrate that consumers are willing to participate when the government actually asks them. During the first legislative review of the TVPA, which focused on vaping, Health Canada received 3,092 submissions, and its final report states that the vast majority were submitted by people who use vaping products. Consumers and consumer advocacy organizations have also participated in subsequent consultations. That tells us something important: consumers did not fail to engage in the TVPA review process. We showed up. Canadians took the time to tell the government what these products meant in their lives, what was working, what was not working and what they were concerned about. It is therefore difficult to understand why lived experience can be welcomed through a consultation portal but not considered important enough to be heard directly when Parliament examines the legislation itself.
I am one of those Canadians. I smoked for about 25 years, starting when I was 14. I am now approximately 16 years smoke-free, and I am incredibly proud of that. My experience is obviously my own, and I would never suggest that one person’s experience should determine public policy, but neither should experiences like mine be dismissed as irrelevant. There are real people behind the statistics we debate, and those people should have a place in the discussion.
When I found out that I might have the opportunity to appear before this Committee, I happened to be in a public place in my small Ontario community and I got a little overexcited. Two women nearby heard me and asked what was going on. I told them I might be appearing before a Senate committee, and they immediately became my little cheerleading section. Then they asked what I would be talking about. When I explained it, the conversation changed very quickly. By the end of it, their position was essentially that smokers know what they are getting themselves into and, if they become sick, it is their own fault. There remains a judgement attached to smoking, and increasingly to nicotine use generally, that somehow the people involved deserve whatever consequences come their way. When the lived experience of people who smoke and vape is missing from discussions like this one, I worry that we continue to reinforce that stigma rather than challenge it.
That brings me to the proposal to extend the TVPA review period from two years to five. I strongly oppose that change. The entire TVPA is not reviewed every two years. The first review focused primarily on vaping, the second on tobacco, and the third on compliance and enforcement. In other words, we have been reviewing the Act in pieces, not comprehensively. That matters. If we move to a five-year cycle and continue reviewing the TVPA this way, how long could it be before some parts of the Act are seriously looked at again?
That matters because moving to a five-year review could mean some parts of the Act go much longer than five years without being seriously reconsidered. And five years is already an eternity in this space. Since the TVPA was created in 2018, we have seen pod systems, nicotine salts, disposables, nicotine pouches and multiple generations of new technology. The marketplace, the evidence, consumer behaviour and the illegal market have all evolved. What nicotine looked like in 2018 is not what it looks like today, and none of us knows what it will look like in 2031.
Health Canada itself has acknowledged this reality. It has described a rapidly evolving market and, when dealing with emerging nicotine products, talked about the need to “future-proof” regulation against products that may not even be in Canada yet. I agree with Health Canada on that point. But that makes moving from a two-year review to a five-year review even harder for me to understand. How do we future-proof nicotine regulation while reducing how often we are required to stop and ask whether the legislation is keeping up?
While all of this changes, Canadians are still smoking cigarettes. Tobacco use continues to cause tens of thousands of deaths in Canada every year, while the evidence around alternatives continues to develop. The Cochrane living systematic review has found high-certainty evidence that nicotine e-cigarettes increase smoking quit rates compared with traditional nicotine replacement therapy. That does not mean vaping is risk-free, nor does it eliminate legitimate concerns around youth use, product standards or enforcement. It does mean that the evidence deserves regular consideration within a legislative framework capable of responding to new information rather than waiting years to revisit decisions made for a very different marketplace.
But maybe we are asking the wrong question. Instead of debating whether we review the TVPA every two years or every five, maybe it is time to remove the “V” from the TVPA altogether.
Canada needs a serious conversation about a separate Safer Nicotine Act. Cigarettes and non-combustible nicotine products are fundamentally different products with different risk profiles. This is something Canadians do not understand and it has a direct impact on public health. Our laws should recognize that difference, while maintaining strong protections for consumers and young people and communicating the relative risks of products accurately. It is time to stop regulating every nicotine product as though it were a cigarette.
A Safer Nicotine Act would not mean abandoning regulation. It would not mean ignoring youth use, eliminating age restrictions or pretending these products are harmless. It would mean starting with a different regulatory question. Rather than trying to fit every nicotine product into a framework built around tobacco, we could ask how different products should be regulated according to their risks, their intended consumers and their potential role in moving adults away from combustible cigarettes. Product standards, age restrictions, responsible retailing, consumer protections, enforcement and youth protections would all remain essential parts of that conversation.
We have already started this conversation. In November 2025, Rights 4 Vapers brought researchers, physicians, policy experts, advocates and consumers together in Ottawa for the Safer Nicotine Summit to ask a simple question: what could better nicotine policy look like in Canada? We talked about adult access, youth protection, enforcement, the illegal market and how regulation could better recognize the differences between combustible tobacco and non-combustible nicotine.
At the centre of those discussions were the Three As: Access, Acceptability and Affordability. If we want people to move away from cigarettes, alternatives have to be available, acceptable enough that people will use them and affordable enough that cigarettes are not the easier choice, supported by strong product standards, responsible retailing, enforcement and youth protections.
I am including with this submission the white papers I developed following the Safer Nicotine Summit, which provide considerably more detail about those discussions and the recommendations that emerged from them
My request to this Committee is simple. Before extending the TVPA review from two years to five, look at what has actually been reviewed, how quickly this market is evolving and how long parts of this legislation could go without serious reconsideration. Recognize consumers as stakeholders. Written submissions matter, but they are not a substitute for lived experience at the table. Senators must hear directly from the Canadians living with these policies, because legislation can look very different from Ottawa than it does from the other side of a cigarette.
Canada should continue reviewing this legislation frequently, but we also need to ask the bigger question: Is it time to remove the “V” from the TVPA and have a serious conversation about a Safer Nicotine Act?
Ultimately, success should be measured by one thing: Are we helping fewer Canadians smoke cigarettes?
That is the conversation I hope this Committee is willing to have. I would also be honoured to connect with any of you or your staff to answer questions, discuss the Safer Nicotine Summit or provide additional information.
Maria Papaioannoy
Founder, Rights 4 Vapers
647-407-7206
maria@rights4vapers.com
