Line 18 is actually line 17.
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.
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.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Gordon Kitchen Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
That was my issue, as my colleague just said. Counting back from line 20, line 18 would be the smaller point, “Advertising directed at children”, not the bigger one. If that's the case, we have “Short Title” and “Short title”. Is “Short title” a line or not a line?
How do you count these lines?
12:35 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
Mr. Kitchen, it's the exact opposite of what you just suggested. Line 18 would be the first instance of “Advertising Directed at Children”—the heading with the bigger font. The second, lowercase one—“Advertising directed at children”—is what we call a marginal note, and we don't count that as one of the lines for the purposes of counting lines in legislation.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Is there any further discussion? Are there any questions in connection with amendment G-1?
(Amendment agreed to on division)
That brings us to G-2.
We need someone to move G-2, please.
12:35 p.m.
van Koeverden
I so move.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Is there any discussion on amendment G-2?
We have Dr. Kitchen, and then Dr. Ellis.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Gordon Kitchen Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Just for clarification, therefore, this would say, “Subject to the regulations, no person shall advertise prescribed foods that contain more than the prescribed level of sugars....” Is that correct?
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
I'm sorry, Chair. Thank you very much. Regarding “prescribed foods”, is that going to come by regulation? Where is it coming from? What about “prescribed level of sugars”? Where's the answer to that?
12:35 p.m.
Chief Medical Advisor and Senior Medical Advisor, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health
Yes. The challenge with the way it's currently worded is in things like “children's diets” not being defined. It's a bit vague. Adding “prescribed” in those two areas then allows the Governor in Council to make regulations to define the scope of that. It's important to do that for children compared to other people, because they have different nutrient requirements, so it would have to be tailored. Depending on what the overall scope of the regulations would be, it would need to correspond with that.
As an example, for front-of-pack labelling, we use certain percentages for that labelling, but those are really designed for adults and may not necessarily apply to children. It's to allow that to happen through regulation.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Doesn't that then mean you're going to have to have one...? Are they going to be weight-based? Are they going to be age-based? This is complicated if we're talking about infants all the way to at least age 13, and in some instances, according to some of the other amendments, up to age 17. Those children would perhaps be as big as adults.
What is the plan? Is it going to be weight-based or...? How is this going to work?
12:40 p.m.
Chief Medical Advisor and Senior Medical Advisor, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health
Part of this is that it would apply only to children up to the age of 13 in the way it is framed. Then, yes, there would be a process to define how best to do that. Depending on how broad or narrow those parameters are, we would do that either based on age or based on weight, or there may be parameters that would apply to that whole group—from the age of 0 to 13—that may be applicable.
Again, it's something that we would work on through policy and then through regulations. Of course, all of that would be consulted on.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Marcus Powlowski Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
Is “prescribed” in the definition section of the Food and Drugs Act, or is that required? Is it automatic—to “prescribe” means by regulation?
Is it defined in the act?
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
This is for Mr. Lee or Dr. Sharma. Who wants that one?
Go ahead, Mr. Lee.
12:40 p.m.
Chief Regulatory Officer, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health
“Prescribe” is not prescribed in the sense that a prescriber would administer; it means by regulation. This is a food identified by regulation, and it's not defined in the act.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Marcus Powlowski Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
Is that in the definition section of the act, or is it automatically assumed that “prescribed” means by regulation?
12:40 p.m.
Chief Regulatory Officer, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health
The use of “prescribed” before whatever it defines points to ones defined by regulation. It's a convention that you'll see throughout the act.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
Effectively, by changing the word from “excess” to “prescribed”, we are giving.... Who will decide on which foods make that prescribed list? Is it something that is set out by the Governor in Council? Is it something that can be at the whim of any government, or is this something that Health Canada, perhaps, sets?
12:40 p.m.
Chief Regulatory Officer, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health
This would be by Governor in Council. It would be a full regulatory package that would go through the usual process.