I think we're all pretty clear at this point about how the process works, when it's through regulation and the gazetting process. Many of us would have gone through it in some way, shape, or form through the years.
I understand there is a regulatory process and the officials at Health Canada will do their due diligence. My point is that we will have members of Parliament voting on a private member's bill about which they do not have definition of “unhealthy food”. We've already heard that. We've heard that from officials, we've heard that from experts, that we do not know the definition of unhealthy food. I would have said at the very least we should know that before we vote on it. If I had known what the exact definition of unhealthy food was, maybe I'd be supporting this bill, but I have no idea. Maybe an apple is unhealthy. I don't know. I doubt it would be deemed unhealthy, but I'm just making that as my point.
Second, I would go back to one word in the bill; it raises my eyebrow. It was in clause 5 and it says “in a manner that is primarily directed at children”. It doesn't say it has to be only directed at children, it says “primarily directed at children”. Any legalese would tell you that “primarily” means something much different from “definitively”. That could be a concern down the road. I don't know.
Anyhow, vote away, vote often, but do know that you're voting for something that isn't defined and it isn't costed, if that makes you feel any better.