Health Committee on March 28th, 2023

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

That's correct.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Thank you.

Why was it put in here in the first place?

[David Lee]

There's more than just that wording. That wording is just changed around. It goes from “directed primarily” to “primarily directed”. The government drafters have phrased it that way, but it's the same intent. The prohibition is really aimed at advertising that is targeting the child, so that carries the meaning.

The other point to make is that we're tightening up the language of the prohibition. Terms like “children's diets” are a bit vague for a prohibition to be able to enforce and interpret. It's just tightening those aspects up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I just want to make sure I understand the proposed amendment.

I thought it was proposed that we delete it because it's redundant. When I'm looking at the draft act, I see in larger font, “Advertising Directed at Children”, and then underneath that, in smaller font but bolded, “Advertising directed at children”. I thought we were just talking about deleting the part in bold because it's redundant. Are you talking about deleting all reference to advertising directed at children?

[David Lee]

I apologize. If we're just talking about the subtitle, that's just a technical issue. The act is organized with certain subtitles, and we don't usually put in a subtitle under a provision such as “general” or “food”. It's just tidying up and keeping the integrity of the statute.

I'm sorry. I was speaking to the next motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

This is for Mr. Davies and Mr. Lee.

We have a couple of experts here from legislative counsel. They are also here to assist us and to answer questions of a technical nature.

Mr. Lee, if you're comfortable with the questions, that's fine. If anyone would prefer to direct questions to the lawyers in the front of the room, then they're welcome to do that, as well.

It's back to Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

To make sure I understand it, it would delete both references. There would be no reference to advertising directed at children. If I understand the rationale, it's because the actual section says “primarily at persons who are under 13”, and you don't want confusion. If you had the title “Directed at Children”, the reader would be unclear if that meant under 18 or under 13. Is that the—

[David Lee]

Again, it's just a subtitle. There is “primarily directed” still in the text of the provision. That's still there, that concept. That's not being eliminated. It's just that the subtitle is being taken out so that the integrity, the way the act works, is preserved. We're not losing the concept from the prohibition.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Could we not amend the title to read “Advertising Primarily Directed at Children”, or would that still leave the issue of the age?

[David Lee]

If I may, I think the issue is that there's a title at all. The act just works by.... In terms of segmenting the parts of the act, we'll know what this provision is by the way it operates.

We don't put in subtitles like that in the rest of the act. We're just urging that this be like all the other provisions.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mrs. Goodridge.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

For a rare change of pace, Mr. Davies basically covered all my questions in a very succinct way, so I will pass.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Is there any further discussion on amendment G-1?

Dr. Ellis.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Thank you, Chair.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but the amendment seems pretty clear. All we're doing, as Mr. Davies said, is getting rid of the bold words. It's very clear. Are we getting rid of the words above it, as well?

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

They don't actually exist.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

This is insanity. They don't exist?

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I'm advised that its exactly the opposite. The import of the amendment is to get rid of the title that reads “Advertising Directed at Children” and to retain the part in bold.

You're going to hear from the legislative counsel.

Mr. Vaive, go ahead.

[Justin Vaive, Legislative Clerk]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

What's being proposed here is to remove the first reference, “Advertising Directed at Children”, in the bigger case. As Mr. Lee was indicating, it's really just a header, a subtitle that, if this were to be adopted, once it fits into the amending statute wouldn't need to appear again.

The smaller reference, the second reference, “Advertising directed at children”, would remain. It's what we would call a “marginal note”. It provides the basis for what the subject matter is of that section right there.

The proposal here would be to leave the second one and remove the first reference to it, as it's redundant.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mrs. Goodridge and then Dr. Kitchen.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

If I'm using the lines from the text.... We're deleting the one, but that isn't line 18. It screws everything else up, and it makes amendment G-2 problematic, as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. Vaive, please.

[Justin Vaive]

It's because of the numbering sequence. The marginal note, which is the second reference, isn't actually counted as one of the lines, so line 18 is the text above, which is the first instance of “Advertising Directed at Children”.

I don't make the rules.