Health Committee on Feb. 28th, 2018

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

I'd like to propose the amendment as listed. Basically the purpose of this amendment would be....It relates to clause 18, so it modifies clause 53. It allows substances regulated by the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to be excluded from regulation. It allows the use of prescription products.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Is there any discussion?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 53 as amended agreed to)

Now we have no amendments from 54 to 60.

(Clauses 54 to 60 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 61)

We have Liberal-12.

It's already adopted. Perfect.

So we'll go to Liberal-13 in clause 61.

It's carried.

(Clauses 61 and 62 agreed to)

(On clause 63)

So we go to Liberal-13.

Ms. Sidhu.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would like to propose that Bill S-5 in clause 63 be amended by replacing line 32 on page 40 with the following:

(2), 23.1(1) or (2) or 23.2(1) or (2), section 23.3, subsection 24(1) or (2), section 25,

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Ms. Gladu.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

What does this amendment do?

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

This proposed amendment to clause 60 would create an offense in section 47 to the proposed tobacco and vaping products act identical to that for the prohibition already set out for proposed section 30.41, vaping devices.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

All in favour of Liberal-13?

(Amendment agreed to)

I skipped over clause 62, but I see no amendments, so I'm going to declare that carried.

Liberal-14 is already adopted, so now we go to NDP-10.

Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I'm pretty sure that NDP-10 is a consequential amendment to the flavouring that would maybe not be relevant. Was that right?

Because NDP-8 was defeated, I think NDP-10 and NDP-11 are consequentially defeated. Am I right?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

I'm sorry, I was distracted.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I believe that NDP amendments 10 and 11 are consequentially defeated because they were companion amendments to NDP-8.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Okay, so we'll declare that defeated. You're withdrawing it, in other words.

(Clause 63 as amended agreed to)

Now we have clauses 64 through 67. I see no amendments.

(Clauses 64 to 67 inclusive agreed to)

On clause 68, we have Liberal-15.

Mr. McKinnon.

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

This amendment was to amend the definition of manufacture and sell in the Tobacco Act to clarify that these activities include the manufacture and sale of tobacco products for export. I think it's pretty straightforward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

I see no debate, so I'll call for a vote on Liberal-15.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Pardon?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

I was trying to voice an objection.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Well, we were in a vote.

(Clause 68 as amended agreed to)

I see no amendments to clauses 69 and 70.

(Clauses 69 and 70 agreed to)

Now on clause 70.1, we have a new clause by CPC-11. We have declared this inadmissible because it affects the excise tax, which was not involved in the first original bill.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Could I ask the clerk what the protocol is? If an amendment has been submitted and then deemed rejected, what is the protocol to advise the people who submitted that? I'll start with that question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

I have a ruling, and that is an amendment is admissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee. The Excise Act is not before the committee and it was not part of the original bill, so I'm declaring it out of order.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

I'm asking what the procedure is to advise the people who submitted the amendment of that situation rather than here at the table.

Is there a process whereby they have the courtesy of being advised ahead of time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

It's upon request by the member to determine.... They request, I guess—I'm just repeating—if this is admissible or not, if the amendment is admissible.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Is there no responsibility incumbent upon the people who deemed it inadmissible to advise the submitter?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

I'm making a ruling and I'm advising you now. This is the first opportunity I've had to do it.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

This is the first opportunity we've had to debate the issue of whether it should be considered admissible.

I would submit that with all the discussion there's been about making this safer, making the smoking world safer—and by that, I would include consumer safety—the reduction of the presence of contraband would go a long way toward that. It also pertains to public safety. It's long been known in the industry that one of the most effective ways to control contraband is to control the acetate tow.

The minister herself raised this point while she was here. She said that the control of contraband was something she took very seriously, that the ministry took very seriously, that they were aware of the difficulties here. I believe the phrase was “one of her top priorities” to attack the contraband market. This is one of those devices and materials that has been referred to within this bill as terms of being under control for control purposes.

I would submit that as part of the device, this is something that should be included in this bill. It's a wonderful opportunity for the government to make good on its commitment to help.

The ministry officials would perhaps have some comment to make on this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Look, it's a fundamental rule. The rule is that since the Excise Act, 2001 is not being amended by Bill S-5, it is the opinion of the chair that the amendment goes beyond the scope of the bill and is therefore inadmissible.

It isn't up to the health officials. This is a process rule. You can't amend another act if the original bill doesn't include that act. If the original bill is not affecting the Excise Act, you can't drag the excise tax in and amend it.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

This isn't about excise tax; this is about control of a specific ingredient, as is done with many ingredients—we said, all the other ingredients—within the tobacco products.

Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

However, it doesn't mean the Excise Act. The amendment affects the Excise Act.