Evidence of meeting #94 for Health in the 42nd Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
Chair, I think we're spinning around in circles. I'd like to call the question.
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
Thank you.
I'd like to make a subamendment to Mr. Davies' amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
I need to get a ruling here.
All right, I can't do that, so we're going to go to Mr. Lobb.
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
I'd like to make a subamendment to Mr. Davies' amendment NDP-5 and I'd like to put below what Mr. Davies has put and I'd like to add “renumbering the remaining provision and amending all references to it accordingly”. That's how I'd like to have my subamendment go. Okay?
Liberal
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Thank you for that.
I accept that friendly amendment, and now of course the NDP amendment is identical to the Liberal amendment that would come after this. It's identical in every respect.
As Dr. Eyolfson said, he agrees with the motion and the amendment; the only reason that he wouldn't support it is because the wording was different in Liberal-6.
I would certainly expect his support now, as well as all of the other Liberals, if in fact the purpose is to amend the act in a positive way and not instead to oppose for political posturing purposes.
Liberal
John Oliver Liberal Oakville, ON
I'm confused about committee process.
There are amendments that have been tabled and circulated. If every time some other party sees an amendment coming that they prefer the language of, they simply—earlier than the other one—change their motions to adopt those languages.... I mean what's the process here?
I think we should vote on this subamendment. There's a really good motion that I think achieves what Mr. Davies wants to achieve. It's the issue that the Minister of Health spoke to. It's coming. I feel that this is just disintegrating into...I don't know what.
There are also Liberal amendments that were required because of this change that the NDP didn't pick up, so it isn't the same standard of motion as the Liberal motions coming forward. Starting to amend a motion based on another party's motion that's sitting after theirs doesn't make sense as good committee process.
I wouldn't be supporting this. I think we should get on with these motions.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
If Liberals don't want to support the NDP motion because they want to be the ones who make the change, then they should say so.
However, let's be very clear here. The subamendment moved by Mr. Lobb now makes the NDP motion identical to the motion that's coming after. Anybody who's watching these proceedings or who reads these proceedings should know that the vote that's about to occur on Mr. Lobb's subamendment is to make the NDP motion identical to the Liberals' motion that will come next.
If Liberals vote against the subamendment, then they are voting against making the NDP motion, identical to the one they want to support. People should be clear on that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
Okay.
(Subamendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The subamendment is defeated, and now we'll go to the amendment NDP-5 as originally tabled.
Mr. Davies.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
I'd like to speak to the motion.
I don't know if any Liberal will have the courage to explain why they just voted against adding words that they said were the very reason they preferred their amendment. When those words were to be added to the NDP motion, for some inexplicable reason, they voted against it.
This motion that the NDP has moved is a necessary improvement to the bill. It was a clear flaw, drafted by the Liberals when they first introduced it, which would have allowed lifestyle advertising for vaping products targeted at non-smokers. I'm glad that it's being corrected, but I think that people should have a clear understanding of the political motivations of the Liberals in passing this.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
I'd like a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 3)
Liberal
John Oliver Liberal Oakville, ON
It's my honour to bring this motion forward. I want to echo Mr. Davies, who made some excellent comments about the need for this legislation. I think the importance of the committee process is that when legislation is brought forward to committee, we hear from our witnesses and from the informed public about whether the bill is working or not working. We heard from multiple witnesses that there was a problem with lifestyle advertising and it needed to be eliminated. I think what really struck me was that the Minister of Health, when she came and spoke to this legislation, said that she'd already heard that and that she would be supporting and looking for an amendment dealing with this in particular.
Lifestyle advertising risks glamourizing vaping products. Creating positive associations with vaping products is unacceptable. We have a challenge with nicotine in our society. We can't be advertising to our youth to promote the use of nicotine.
I think it's quite an appropriate motion. In addition, unlike the NPD motion, it does deal with amending references. I will let the committee know that two more amendments were required because of this change. They will be coming later on, dealing with clause 61 and clause 63. I think that's the main difference, that we're referencing those.
With that, I would be happy to move this amendment.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Well, I certainly agree with Mr. Oliver in substance—we join on the issue of it—but I would point out that as the mover of it, he should move it certainly as a substantive improvement but with no honour, given what just occurred. I have to point out the disingenuousness of his last comment. He made a reference to the fact that this motion contained the words “renumbering the remaining provision and amending all references to it accordingly“, and that this is an advantage of his motion. That he just voted against adding those exact words to the NDP amendment must be recorded for posterity.
Liberal
John Oliver Liberal Oakville, ON
I just wanted to reiterate again the comments I made with respect to Mr. Lobb's subamendment on the previous motion. To me, the gamesmanship is on Mr. Davies' side of the table here. We had a motion, it had differences from his motion. We're in a committee process here. We're going amendment by amendment, motion by motion. Trying to build up your own motion because you see other things coming further down the road that you think make your motion better—I don't think that's what our committee process is about.
I think there's been enough said on this. We should have the vote. It's just about good committee process and the transparency of how we're dealing with these motions and what you bring to the table in the first go, not what you build sitting here after everybody else's amendments are in front of you.