Health Committee on March 30th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 60 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health. Today we will consider Bill C-252, before proceeding to drafting instructions for the report on children's health and to committee business, in camera.

I'd like to, first of all, indicate to the committee that, in accordance with our routine motion—and as you know first-hand—all remote participants have completed the required connection tests in advance of the meeting.

I will now welcome back Ms. Lattanzio, the sponsor of Bill C-252, and our two officials from Health Canada. Thank you for coming back to be with us.

They are here, of course, in case there are questions for the department about the bill. They are Dr. Supriya Sharma, chief medical adviser and senior medical adviser, health products and food branch; and David Lee, chief regulatory officer, health products and food branch.

(On clause 4)

When we left off on Tuesday, we were discussing amendment G-2, which is an amendment to clause 4, so I would suggest that we pick up where we left off.

I recognize Mrs. Goodridge.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to propose a subamendment, which I provided in advance to the clerk. I believe everyone should have a copy, or they will soon. It's that after “prescribed foods” we add a comma and “excluding unprocessed foods,”.

It's just a simple subamendment to clarify that unprocessed, single-ingredient foods would explicitly not be allowed to be on that prescribed list. I think that achieves some of the conversation we were having in the meeting prior to this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mrs. Goodridge, and thank you for providing the subamendment in advance. It allowed for me to be able to consult with the legislative clerk and to be advised that the amendment is admissible and in order.

The debate is now on the subamendment.

Mr. van Koeverden.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, MP Goodridge, for the subamendment.

Without getting into the weeds too much—because I think that's where we ended off at our last meeting, talking about very specific foods and various ingredients—I just want to turn to the officials to see if this is a something we should be concerned about. Without going into examples—because I think we got into yogourt and apples and stuff last time—is this something we've considered already, and is it a concern for this legislation?

[Dr. Supriya Sharma, Chief Medical Adviser and Senior Medical Adviser, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health]

It is. I think that's one way to define it. I have just a couple of points to make. Not all processed foods would have added sodium, sugars or saturated fats. Also, some types of processing actually contribute to food safety. For example, milk would be considered a processed product because pasteurization is a process.

Those are some of the challenges around saying there should be no processing at all. It would potentially not necessarily capture all of the products that you might want to consider. It might actually inadvertently capture some other products as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

We'll go to Mr. Davies and then Mrs. Goodridge.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Just following that line, is there a definition in the Food and Drugs Act of what “processed” or “unprocessed” foods are? That's my first question.

Maybe I'll have you answer that, and then I'll ask my second question.

[David Lee, Chief Regulatory Officer, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health]

There's not one in the act. The wording does occur in the regulations, but there's not that definition in the act.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Okay.

Second, Dr. Sharma, you maybe alluded to this a little bit, but are there any unprocessed foods you can think of that may be something that may contribute to excess sugar or trans fats or sodium?

[Dr. Supriya Sharma]

I would have to think about that one. I'm sorry. I don't want to misspeak here, but we can check and see.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Go ahead, Mrs. Goodridge.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The intent that we wanted was to exclude single-item food products, but in working with the legislative clerk, they recommended “unprocessed foods” as the language.

My concern is eggs, as a very good example. We've gone through phases where people have said that eggs are bad. We've gone through phases where they've said that eggs are good. I think we're back to the “eggs are good” piece, but I think it's important to give some clarity because a lot of our agricultural products—whether it be avocados or almonds—have very high saturated fats, but in moderation, they're considered to be good, healthy fats.

[Dr. Supriya Sharma]

Absolutely. The way the food policy is structured.... For example, we wouldn't see something that would be limited in this category but also recommended as part of the food guide, because it's the same basis of data we go by. Things like that—fruits, vegetables and whole foods—are recommended as part of your daily intake. It is definitely not the intent of any policy to exclude all of those.

Again, as for the definitions of what would be included or not included, we would put those in the regulations. I can understand the desire to have it a bit higher, but if it's in the act, it has to be defined somewhere as well. If down the road terminology changes, or something else changes, it makes it that much more difficult to then go back to the act to try to make those revisions. That's just the technical part of it.

Certainly, in terms of the process to develop the regulations and to define the foods that would be included in that prohibition, again, we're looking at that body of evidence. It would be in line with the food guide. There are other policies. The WHO has policies as well in terms of how to define those products. There is a process there to develop the products.

I think David wanted to add to that.

[David Lee]

Yes. If it's any help, we had a recent policy on front-of-package labelling, where there was a prohibition referring to high in sodium, sugars and saturated fat. We did use the exemption power for some types of foods—milk and other whole foods—and that worked quite well. It was based on the science, but it was at the regulation level. It is something we have done before.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you.

Dr. Hanley.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I certainly understand where Mrs. Goodridge is coming from and the intent. Echoing what the officials just have told us, as this is enabling legislation, we need to leave that kind of content to the regulations and trust the process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Next, I have Dr. Powlowski, and then Dr. Kitchen.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

I have two things. I don't think it's that simple a change. As previously mentioned, you would have to put a definition of what is “unprocessed foods”. That would mean amending it again.

However, I would also say that it's not the kind of thing we should do at the last minute, without much consideration. I, too, am thinking of whether there is any unprocessed food that might fit into that category. I don't know. It just seems like it's not a good idea, introducing something like this at the last minute, without the time to properly consider it and talk to all the experts about these things.

I do agree, though, that I would not like to see eggs and milk on that. I, too, have farmers in my riding, and I want that on the record.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Dr. Powlowski.

Next, I have Dr. Kitchen, and then Mrs. Goodridge.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Dr. Sharma, your comments about the food guide are eye-opening. We realize the food guide changes quite regularly, or it can. It doesn't go through the regulatory and, particularly, the parliamentary process of setting legislation.

When you have a food guide that can change, yet we're putting wording in here that can't be changed, there are some concerns about that. The reality is that, if that food guide all of a sudden changes, the wording becomes out of place.

How do we solve that? How do we avoid that issue?

[Dr. Supriya Sharma]

The food guide takes years to change each time we make revisions to it. It is a very intensive process. I hope I wasn't giving the impression that it would be referenced. I was just underscoring the point that it would be aligned with that.

Take, for example, the consumption of whole foods, like fresh fruits and vegetables, milk and dairy, and nutritious products like whole grains. It's all something that we recommend people have as part of their daily intake. Those products would not be included in something that we would prevent advertising for.

Conversely, as I noted, if we say “unprocessed”, milk would not be included in that. Frozen vegetables and canned vegetables that have no added sugar, salt or fat would not be included in that. I wanted to underscore that the “unprocessed” term may not necessarily capture what people intend to capture.

Again, the food guide is another source document that has a lot of evidence that's supported. What we propose is that it be a nutrient-based model, so you would have types of products and then you would have nutrient levels. If they were beyond those nutrient levels, because they would be the ones that are deemed to potentially contribute to a diet that would not be healthy, they would be the products that are included.

There would be a science-based process to go along with that. There's a cost-benefit analysis that goes with that. There's the consultation process.

I'll offer one option that we consulted on previously on this side of things. We were looking at whether or not “added”—as in “added to foods”—would be the terminology. It would be “products without added X, Y and Z”, and you could define those in the other terms.

However, the science changes, and wiring things in at the act level makes it very complicated to change. There's a process for regulations. They are not quick either. They usually take a couple of years, but at least, if something changes, there is a way to modify them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Go ahead, Mrs. Goodridge.

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

[Technical difficulty—Editor] the wording that was suggested to me by the legislative drafters was perhaps not going to accomplish what I was hoping it would accomplish. My intent was to have those whole food items included in that.

As a result, I think I will remove my subamendment, with unanimous consent.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Do we have unanimous consent for the subamendment to be withdrawn? I see heads nodding all around and on the screen.