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
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
I see no further debate, so we will go to a vote on NDP-4.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now we'll go to LIB-5. My note here says that if it's adopted, NDP-5, LIB-6, and NDP-6 cannot be moved because of a conflict.
On amendment LIB-5, go ahead, Mr. McKinnon.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
I will be withdrawing this amendment in favour of LIB-6.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
This amendment would remove the provision in the bill that allows vaping product lifestyle advertising in bars and in publications sent to an adult. We've heard lots of evidence on this. It's very clear that even though vaping products have measurable health advantages over tobacco products, clearly we as a health committee, nation, or government do not want to be encouraging anybody to start the habit of ingesting nicotine in any form. The problem with this bill—and I think this was also squarely addressed by the minister—is that when you allow lifestyle advertising in places frequented by adults, such as bars, you are subjecting non-smokers who are still relatively young—18, 19, 20, or 21 years old—to advertising that is not meant to inform them of the harm reduction properties of vaping products. Rather, the way the bill is currently structured, they'll be subjected to measures, promotions, and advertising that will encourage them to take up the ingestion of nicotine by vaping products. There was no evidence before this committee that suggested that this was desirable or our goal. In fact, it's the opposite.
I would encourage my colleagues to support this.
Liberal
Doug Eyolfson Liberal Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
Thank you.
I agree with everything that Mr. Davies said about the importance of this.
The only reason I'm not supporting this is simply that we're proposing an amendment that has exactly the same sentiment and addresses exactly the same problem, but our staff who were reviewing it found that the language was better and clearer. For no other reason I'm opposing this in favour of the next amendment, which is LIB-6.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Thank you for that.
Can you maybe help me out? It may affect whether I proceed with this or not. How is the Liberal wording preferential?
Liberal
Doug Eyolfson Liberal Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
I can't find the current wording right now of the NDP amendment, but our amendment says that Bill S-5, in clause 36, be amended:
(a) by deleting lines 22 to 29 on page 21;
(b) renumbering the remaining provision and amending all references to it accordingly.
I don't have the comparison to that at this moment.
Liberal
John Oliver Liberal Oakville, ON
I think we should be dealing with each amendment as it is and not looking forward in what's to come. I think we should vote on this one and move on to the next one.
Conservative
Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
I prefer LIB-6 because it renumbers the remaining provisions and amendments—all the references to it—so it's a better amendment of the exact same thing.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Let's be clear and then we can move on. My amendment says that Bill S-5, in Clause 36, be amended by deleting lines 22 to 29 on page 21.
Here's the Liberal amendment. That Bill S-5, in Clause 36, be amended:
(a) by deleting lines 22 to 29 on page 21;
It does exactly the same thing, except that it adds—and Liberals have referred to this before:
(b) renumbering the remaining provision and amending all references to it accordingly.
We all know that's unnecessary. Whenever you amend the bill, obviously everything else gets renumbered. There is zero difference between the NDP and the Liberal amendments, and the Liberals know it. The only reason they're voting against the NDP motion right now is that they don't want to support an NDP motion to improve a bill that the Liberals proposed, which went through the Senate and which allows lifestyle advertising for vaping products in bars, which we know is an undesirable provision in the bill. The Liberals want to look like they're the ones who are removing it, not the NDP. Let's be clear about this. It's going to happen one way or the other, because the NDP has the majority on this committee, but let's be clear: the only reason the Liberals are voting... against the NDP motion here is that ours was in first and ours does exactly what they want to do, first. Let's not insult anybody's intelligence by trying to suggest that the Liberal amendment is better than the NDP's. It's identical to the NDP amendment.
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
I agree exactly with what Don is saying. I wonder if our clerk here could tell us if part (b) of amendment LIB-6 is redundant. Obviously, you would do that anyway. If amendment NDP-5 passes, you're obviously going to adjust everything. Is that correct?
Olivier Champagne Legislative Clerk, House of Commons
Yes and no.
With regard to the renumbering, it is. Amending all references to it accordingly normally requires other amendments, and those other amendments exist. The Liberals have submitted them. They are amendments LIB-8, LIB-12, and LIB-14. In my opinion, if we adopt amendment LIB-6, those other amendments will be adopted as a consequence of that.
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
If there were no amendment LIB-6 and we only had amendment LIB-5 to deal with, can you tell us what we would do then? Sorry, I mean amendment NDP-5. If we had only amendment NDP-5 and we didn't have amendment LIB-6 at all, what would you do?
Legislative Clerk, House of Commons
I would say that amendment NDP-9 is the consequence of amendment NDP-5, because removing that element, which is what NDP-5 does, requires removing a reference to that element, and that's what amendment NDP-9 does. I think the Liberal package goes a bit further in terms of renumbering as a consequence of what amendment NDP-9 would do. I know it's a bit confusing, but I have to say that the amendments are different even though they have the same effect on the clause, the portion of the bill we're looking at right now.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
I'm sorry, but did you say it was your opinion that the amendments are different?
Legislative Clerk, House of Commons
They are in some ways, in their consequential effects.
NDP
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.