Yes.
Go ahead, Mr. Oliver.
Evidence of meeting #95 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.
Evidence of meeting #95 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.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
John Oliver Liberal Oakville, ON
I'm just wondering if, given your comments, Mr. Lobb would like to bring more evidence forward. Does he want to hold the vote now, or does he want to defer the vote and bring something back to the committee before we have a vote on his motion? I think the motion does not state what the facts are right now. The drugs are still available through the SAP.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
I'm quite happy to have the vote right now, but I would just like to say that Ms. Little's daughter has been denied twice. I think that should be evidence enough for all committee members to want to know how it can be that a mother and her daughter get denied twice.
Again, I'm happy to be able to present this to committee. We'll see where the vote goes and we'll carry on.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
John Oliver Liberal Oakville, ON
I have a comment.
I don't think the committee would ever be in the business of reviewing a physician's direction to Health Canada on why a drug was needed and why Health Canada and the physicians there decided that it wasn't appropriate. In a case as isolated as one family, I don't think that's the committee's business.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
I declare the motion defeated.
Okay. Now we're going to go back to—
Go ahead, Mr. Boulerice.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Chair, since we are dealing with motions and we are well along in that process, it would be unfortunate to have to stop now. I apologize to the witnesses, and I am going to try to do this as quickly as possible.
My colleague, the member for Vancouver Kingsway, submitted a motion last week. Since the 48-hour deadline has passed, the motion may now be presented. I would like to read it and then see if the members of the committee have comments to make. I would like us to vote on the motion today.
The motion read as follows:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee undertake an emergency study of no fewer than three (3) meetings in order to develop recommendations on actions that the federal government can take, in partnership with the provinces and territories, to better regulate pre-mixed drinks with high alcohol, caffeine, and sugar content; that the Committee report its findings and recommendations to the House no later than June 2018; [...]
As you know, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, a teenager met with a tragic death in Laval, Quebec. Her name was Ms. Athéna Gervais. In the morning before going to school, she had consumed one of these very sweet drinks with a high alcohol content—the alcohol content is in fact about 12%—and this is sold in grocery stores and convenience stores, to minors unfortunately. Each canned drink contains alcohol that is equivalent to approximately four glasses of wine. This is extremely dangerous. Since these drinks are very sweet, people do not feel the effect of the alcohol immediately.
We are concerned by the possibility that these products continue to be sold in Quebec and in Canada. They are dangerous to our adolescents and young adults. Moreover, all of the marketing and ads for these products are targeted directly to teenage boys and girls. A few weeks ago, an ad for one of these products advertised a “special for the break weekend”, in other words, the school break. That publicity was clearly not addressed to you or me, Mr. Chair.
We want to avoid a reoccurrence of the type of tragedy the family of Athéna Gervais has just experienced. That is why it is imperative that a study be done quickly on the impact of these drinks and on what Health Canada should do. Health Canada announced today that it would hold a citizens' public consultation, an initiative we applaud. We think that is a good thing but it is not enough. The Standing Committee on Health has some work to do. We can invite experts, physicians, specialists and social workers to appear. They could tell us what they think the best approach would be to prohibit these products, in whole or in part, or to control their labelling, publicity and marketing. I think it is our responsibility to do that, and I encourage everyone to vote for this motion.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Ramez Ayoub Liberal Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank my colleague opposite for this motion. I am very much aware of the situation concerning poor Athéna Gervais, who lost her life. And I take this opportunity to extend my condolences to her family.
No one wants to see another tragedy. In Quebec, the provincial government is taking action, and the federal government is as well. The Minister of Health has ordered Health Canada to look into the matter with her provincial and territorial colleagues. We are taking action.
I welcome the motion. I saw it last Friday, and it covers most of what needs to be done. Our committee is independent, and given that I would like to support the motion, with some amendments. I don't know if my colleague is ready to accept amendments, but personally I would like to propose a few. I would change certain words to highlight the urgency of the situation.
When I read the passage “That [...], the Committee undertake an emergency study”, I interpret that as meaning “immediately”.
We have another motion on the table, and it is probably, if not certainly, very important as well. However, we have a lot of files to study. Personally, I would change “an emergency study” to “urgently”. This would allow us to study this file within our deadlines—the motion proposes that a report be submitted at the latest by June 2018. This change would allow us enough time to hold the three two-hour meetings proposed in the motion to meet with witnesses.
Below that, I would add the word “combining” in order to bring the three elements of the sentence together, because otherwise the sentence is very vague. And so, I propose: “to better regulate pre-mixed drinks combining high alcohol, caffeine and sugar content”. We are talking about large containers with a lot of alcohol and sugar in them. Those are the amendments I propose.
If you accept these changes, I will support the motion.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I would like to thank my colleague for his motion.
I understand the problem, but it is very important to point out that other provinces, for instance Alberta and Ontario, prohibit the sale of drinks containing alcohol, a high sugar content and caffeine.
The federal government has to put regulations in place to prevent deaths associated with the consumption of this type of drink.
4 p.m.
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville for his kind words for the Gervais family.
I am in favour of the amendments he wishes to make to the motion. These are friendly amendments that align with the spirit of the motion. If the mover of the motion accepts the amendments, should we vote in favour of the amendments before we vote on the motion?
Since I am the person submitting the motion, I welcome the proposed amendments and I support them.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
We have to deal with the amendments first, so we'll call for a vote on the amendments.
The amendments are to change the words from “emergency study” to “urgently”, and to add mixed drinks with both high alcohol, caffeine, and sugar content. Is that correct, Mr. Ayoub?
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
What you're trying to do, I think, is to say we're not going to do a study on drinks with high alcohol, another one on drinks with caffeine, and another one on drinks with sugar content. You want to say it's all combined.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
If we say, “mixed drinks with both high alcohol, caffeine, and sugar content”, does that do it?
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
John Oliver Liberal Oakville, ON
There are actually three elements. It would be “mixed drinks combining high alcohol, caffeine, and sugar content”.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
John Oliver Liberal Oakville, ON
It's “mixed drinks combining high alcohol, caffeine, and sugar content”.