Health Committee on April 18th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Do you have anything to add, Mr. Lee?

[David Lee]

No, I just essentially want to acknowledge that the department does want to move ahead quickly, but because the prohibition, for example, says “prescribed foods”, we need to fill that in before it comes into force. If it came into force a year from now, and they weren't ready with the regulations, it wouldn't work. This is why we're just waiting for the regulations to come in.

We are on it. It's something we've been working on quite directly.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

I've not been here as long as Mr. Jeneroux, but I understand it is not uncommon to have a different coming-into-force date.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Are there any further interventions?

Mr. Thériault.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

So as to help my Conservative colleagues understand, I would remind them that the Standing Committee on Health received a letter from the Retail Council of Canada that, I believe, mentions the objectives the legislative clerks and Mr. Lee were talking about. As to when the Act comes into force, this letter said that it would be wise to take into account the fact that the industry has a lot of work to do to adapt and to understand the regulations. There are also guidelines that need to be developed, amongst other things. It seems that the objectives of industry stakeholders and those of the clerks and Mr. Lee do indeed dovetail.

The last time we met, I told you that this was a good bill. However, in order for a good bill to be enforced efficiently once it has been passed, all stakeholders have to comply with it voluntarily. At the end of the day, given that this is a type of bill whereby everything will be in the regulations, the regulations have to be drafted with the support of stakeholders. Hence the deadline.

Our Conservative colleagues think that the royal sanction might not provide enough time to do the work. I hope that my explanations will help them understand the situation, because I know that they are particularly concerned about the industry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Thériault.

Dr. Kitchen.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question then is this: Who's making the regulations, and who's guiding them to make those regulations? Where is that coming from? From what background are these people who are making these regulations and who are putting this on the table?

[David Lee]

Within the Health Canada department, the food directorate has many experts who are working—experts in nutritional science—on composing regulations along with the Department of Justice, so there's a very expansive team of experts working on this very diligently. Then it would be made transparently through the normal Governor in Council process. That involves a lot of consultation. We need to cost things out. There are a lot of requirements in making these regulations, but we have gathered a lot of expertise.

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

Are there processes in place to ensure that these people who are making these regulations are doing it based on the science, as opposed to doing it on personal beliefs or personal trends? What steps are in place to ensure that doesn't happen?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Excuse my voice. I'm at the tail end of a cold. I'm COVID-negative times five, including this morning, just to let you know.

Absolutely, in terms of the regulation-making process, there are a number of checks and balances, and we've gone through this with a number of files. Whether it's Canada's food guide or front-of-package labelling, when we put forth the regulations, there has to be an entire regulatory impact assessment piece that outlines the science and the basis of the evidence that was used to come to the proposal. It includes all of the consultations that we've gone through. As Mr. Lee has said, it includes the impact on small businesses and a cost-benefit analysis, and then there's an entire consultation process whereby that moves forward.

What we've done for other files is publish all of the data and the evidence that we relied on to make those policy decisions, as well, to make sure that we're completely open and transparent.

Absolutely, whatever we do needs to be.... All of the decisions are made and all of the regulations and policies are based on science and evidence.

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

I appreciate that, but I have some concerns in the sense that.... You mentioned Canada's food guide. I spent 35 years of practice teaching nutrition to patients, yet the food guide, all of a sudden—because somebody has decided that they want to swing one way based on their beliefs, not necessarily the complete science—has made that change. That's why I want to be certain that these steps are being done appropriately and that you're not getting somebody who, for lack of a better word, is a power horse at the top saying, “I'm going to push my agenda and I'm going to have the power to do it.”

What are the steps to make certain that this doesn't happen and that these regulations are appropriate for our future?

[Dr. Supriya Sharma]

Certainly, in terms of the development of policy, it's not one person at all who makes those decisions and puts forth those policies. Again, it's entire groups of scientists, experts in policy and legal experts who come together to bring forth that policy. That policy is then shared publicly for open discussion. We have discussions with stakeholders, as well, so that input can be inserted into the process. Even that input and then the response to that input is publicly available, open and transparent.

The idea is to make sure that the process and the development of both the policy and the regulations are open and transparent so that, as you said, it's not an opinion piece. It's based on science and evidence.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Go ahead, Ms. Sidhu.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

[Technical difficulty—Editor] words of our legislative clerk that this process happens frequently, as Dr. Sharma just mentioned. The checks and balances of the regulations will be comprehensive, and the coming-into-force date allows us to make sure that there is the time necessary. The legislative clerk said that the process happens frequently. They told us.

The coming into force amendment is important, so that everything can be in order. It's right here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Are there any further interventions with respect to G-5?

Seeing none, shall amendment G-5 carry?

(Amendment agreed to)

That was the only amendment proposed for clause 6, so the debate is now on clause 6 as amended.

Are there any interventions?

Go ahead, Mr. Jeneroux.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I didn't mean to derail the intent. I want the sponsor of the bill, who I know has been joining us each and every day, to know that the intent wasn't to stop the bill's coming into force. I just wanted to be clear that I think most private members' bills, at least in my experience—granted, it's good advice from the clerk and from the parliamentary secretary on this particular one—are....

We all hold them pretty dear in this place and we all want to make sure that they come into force at the time when the member brings them through the Senate, which is generally royal assent. That happens according to the work done on the member of Parliament's side, in a lot of ways, through the Senate.

Throwing it back to the government is where I had the concern. I'm comfortable that this won't slow down the process for the member, who I know is eager to see this, but we still have some concerns, obviously, with the bill.

Certainly, that wasn't the intent, and I want to make sure that she's aware that that wasn't the intent of my intervention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Jeneroux. I see her nodding understandingly.

Are there any further interventions with respect to clause 6 as amended?

(Clause 6 as amended agreed to)

That brings us to the short title.

Are there any submissions with respect to the short title of the bill?

Go ahead, Mr. van Koeverden.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

I have a quick question just for clarification on the short title. In other words is that the preamble, or is that different?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

No. We'll get to the preamble after the short title.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

I didn't want to miss it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Okay. Shall the short title carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

(On the preamble)

That brings us to the preamble.

Colleagues, I want to offer a couple of comments here, because in connection with the preamble, there have been two amendments presented. One is G-6 and the other is CPC-5.

You need to know that only one of those two amendments can pass because they both relate to the same line. We're going to call G-6 first. If you really like CPC-5, you should defeat G-6. Otherwise, CPC-5 will be ruled out of order because of a line conflict. I want you to know this before we engage in debate on G-6. If G-6 is adopted, CPC-5 doesn't get considered.

With that, I would ask for the introduction of G-6 or a mover for G-6, please.

Go ahead, Mr. van Koeverden.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Now that we're on the preamble, which is not the same as the short title, we are proposing that it be amended by replacing line 49 on page 2 with the following:

And whereas persons who are between 13 and 17 years of age

We're just changing the upper limit in the last paragraph of the preamble from “16 years of age” to “17 years of age”, which is needed to align with the proposed amendment to clause 4 to change the upper age limit of the persons to whom new section 7.3 would apply.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. van Koeverden.

The amendment is in order. The debate, then, is on G-6. Are there any submissions?

I have Ms. Goodridge, please.