Health Committee on Feb. 28th, 2018

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I'm sorry, but did you say it was your opinion that the amendments are different?

[Olivier Champagne]

In some ways. In their consequential effects.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Well, I want to say for the record that we worked with legislative counsel. We submitted all of our amendments to legislative counsel. With the greatest of respect, that is the most ridiculous explanation of difference of amendments I have ever heard. Both amendments delete the same sections of the act. To say that, well, one is materially different because one says that we renumber the rest of the act, we all know that the renumbering happens. There are other amendments here that don't say “and renumber the act accordingly”. Renumbering happens automatically. And to actually suggest, sir, to this committee, that saying to then consequently renumber the act is a material or significant difference that makes an amendment better, I believe, is disingenuous.

Also, to go on to say that if we remove and delete this section that later references in the act to the part that we deleted will have to be deleted is a matter of pure legislative function.

The last I will say is that if that's the case, sir, then the next time we submit our legislative drafts to legislative counsel, that should be the advice given to every member here, because we certainly would have put those words in if that were different, and that's not the advice we got from the legislative drafters.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. McKinnon.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Chair, I think we're spinning around in circles. I'd like to call the question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. Lobb.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Thank you.

I'd like to make a subamendment to Mr. Davies' amendment.

[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.

[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?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Okay.

Mr. McKinnon, did you have a comment?

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

I was hoping to move the question, but [Inaudible] off of the question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. Davies.

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. Oliver.

[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 which 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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. Davies.

[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 Liberal's 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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

We have a subamendment by Mr. Lobb.

(Subamendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I'd like a recorded vote, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Okay.

(Subamendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

Mr. Davies.

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Okay, is there any further debate?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I'd like a recorded vote, please.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 3)

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

We go now to Lib-6.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

It's my honour to bring this motion forward. I do 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.

So 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.