Evidence of meeting #60 for Health in the 44th 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.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Gordon Kitchen Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
No, just in recognizing the parameters that are there, we're making decisions, because the review would be to take a look at this down the road and ask if the advertising is part of the process.
1:20 p.m.
Chief Medical Adviser and Senior Medical Adviser, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health
There are definitely parameters that have been used for these types of interventions before. If you have something that's targeted to advertising these certain foods to this age group, and then you measure from now how much of that advertising is there that's targeted to that age group, it's something that's measurable that's directly related to the intervention. All of these other things are important. They're important to be monitored, but for this specific intervention, looking at it as part of that parliamentary review in five years, it wouldn't be possible to determine this just because of the nature of these illnesses. It takes time for those trends to be able to evolve.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Gordon Kitchen Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
You would be able to see a suggestion that maybe they're going up or maybe they're going down.
1:20 p.m.
Chief Medical Adviser and Senior Medical Adviser, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health
By doing monitoring, absolutely, we're looking at trends. The question is how you point to something, one specific thing, and say is that.... Again, the way that it's phrased is for proposed sections 7.1 and 7.2, have they been effective? These measures in five years will not be able to tell you that.
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Gordon Kitchen Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Would you have a suggestion on a better wording for it?
March 30th, 2023 / 1:25 p.m.
Chief Medical Adviser and Senior Medical Adviser, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health
Chair, I'm not sure we're here to propose alternatives to amendments, but I'll ask that as a process question.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
Marcus Powlowski Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
The question is whether measuring these parameters shows whether this intervention has been effective, and no, it won't, because there are a lot of other things that happen besides the change in advertising. For example, with respect to diabetes, you're going to have changes perhaps in behaviour in terms of kids becoming more active or less active. That's also going to be affecting the rates of diabetes. A change in the rate of diabetes is not going to solely reflect this change. Similarly, with respect to rates of cancer, rates of cancer are going to change according to exposure to other forms of carcinogens, so whether people smoke, for example, or other kinds of carcinogenic exposure. That's going to affect the rates.
To be able to say you're going to look at these rates to determine whether or not this legislation is effective, measuring those rates isn't going to tell us if they are or aren't effective. That's a problem in public health in general in terms of determining causality. There are so many things influencing people's behaviour and health outcomes, to say this particular intervention causes this or that is very difficult to do. I can sympathize with the Conservatives wanting to have a measure of success, but I don't think that's possible with this kind of public health intervention.
1:25 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
I agree with everything Dr. Powlowski said and I think Dr. Sharma said it perfectly. As laudatory as this amendment may be, it's simply impossible. That's what we're hearing. It's just not possible to do what it says, so that's the end of the matter for me.
I would say that maybe all members should take comfort in the wording that's there, which would say:
Before the fifth anniversary of the day on which sections 7.1 and 7.2 come into force, those sections are to be referred to the committee of the Senate, of the House of Commons or of both Houses of Parliament that may be designated or established for the purpose of reviewing their effect.
What I would argue is that the amendment before us is redundant because it's already in the section that those committees will be empowered to examine the effect. It's broadly speaking there, and at that time, we'll be able to take a look at the lay of the land and determine what impact, if any, could be determined and maybe check into some of these issues. Again, the way this amendment is written, it says to determine where those sections have been effective, “having regard to rates of obesity, high cholesterol, diabetes”. That's too prescriptive and specific and can't be done, but certainly, we'll be able to look at any effect there is.
I just note the time, Mr. Chair. It's 1:30. Some of us have to be in the House soon, and I would move that we adjourn the meeting.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
A motion to adjourn is not debatable.
Is it the will of the committee to adjourn the meeting?
1:25 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.