Evidence of meeting #59 for Health in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was advertising.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
The best course of action, then, is to simply vote against clause 2, as opposed to calling for its deletion.
Other than Mr. van Koeverden's wish to vote against it, is there any other discussion on clause 2?
Go ahead, Mr. Davies.
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
This is a point of clarification, Mr. Chair. When we say clause 2, do we mean section 2? Are we using that interchangeably?
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Thank you, Chair.
To be clear here, what Mr. van Koeverden is proposing is that the words “Food and Drugs Act”, “2 Section 2...” are all deleted. Is that correct?
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
That's precisely my understanding. Clause 2 would not carry, and therefore would not be included in the bill. We're going to put it to a vote here as soon as the discussion is concluded.
Go ahead, Mr. Davies.
12:25 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Can I hear briefly what the rationale for that is? This would remove the words “Food and Drugs Act” and then remove the words “Section 2 of the Food and Drugs Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order”. There's then a definition of children.
What is the purpose of that, and then what is the impact of it?
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Mr. van Koeverden, would you like to explain why you're going to vote against clause 2?
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
The proposed deletion of clause 2 under the FDA regarding children's ages.... They continue to operate effectively. Defining “children” as people “under 13 years of age” under section 2 would contradict regulations that use the term “children” in reference to different age groups. There are already specific regulations for food intended for children one year of age or older, but less than four years of age.
If there are any other points of clarification, I would turn to the officials. That's about where my level of knowledge on this gets to.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Do the officials have anything to add as to why one might be inclined to vote against clause 2?
12:25 p.m.
Chief Regulatory Officer, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health
Just to support that idea, once the term is defined at the level of the act, you don't want to see a lot of variance in the regulation. We do have the mention of children quite often in the food and drug regulations, for things like children's dosing for medication. They're very important, and they don't resemble the “under 13”.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Are there further interventions?
Seeing none, shall clause 2 carry?
(Clause 2 negatived on division)
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
I apologize, Mr. Chair, but I just want to clarify this. Were we voting to keep clause 2 or get rid of clause 2? We were not voting on what was suggested by Mr. van Koeverden, to just remove....
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
I thought he had made an amendment, so I thought we were voting for the amendment.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
You're right, Ms. Goodridge, in that he said he'd like clause 2 to be deleted. I said to him that he should vote against it, and then the debate continued on clause 2 and we just voted against it.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
We were voting to eliminate clause 2, or in support of eliminating clause 2. Okay.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
12:25 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Just for clarity, colleagues, we have defeated clause 2. That's what just happened.
Is there any discussion on clause 3?
(Clause 3 negatived on division)
(On clause 4)
I see that a few amendments have been proposed for clause 4. The first one that I will call is G-1.
Is there any discussion on G-1, which would amend clause 4?
I'm advised that the proper procedure requires that someone move G-1, and that someone can't be me. Do we have a mover?
Mr. van Koeverden is moving G-1.
Would you like to speak to it, Mr. van Koeverden?
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Is there any discussion on G-1?
Dr. Kitchen, go ahead, and then Ms. Goodridge.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Gordon Kitchen Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Just as a point of clarification, I'm taking this to mean that we're taking out “Advertising directed at children”. Is that correct? Is that what the motion is?
12:30 p.m.
Liberal