Health Committee on April 18th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 61 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 committee business in camera.

In accordance with our routine motion, I'm informing the committee that all remote participants have completed the required connection tests.

We have with us Mr. Kram, Mr. Boulerice and Mr. Coteau, who are substituting today. Welcome to all.

I would also like to welcome back our two officials from Health Canada. They are here in case there are questions for the department about Bill C-252. Dr. Supriya Sharma is chief medical adviser, and David Lee is chief regulatory officer for the health products and food branch.

Thank you for coming back and being with us today.

(On clause 4)

Colleagues, at our last meeting we were discussing CPC-4, which relates to clause 4. The amendment had been introduced and debate had commenced.

If we pick up where we left off, that's where we are. We are debating amendment CPC-4. The floor is open for further debate on that amendment.

Yes, Ms. Goodridge.

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

Since there has been a bit of a break since the last time we met on this, I think it's just worth repeating some of the arguments as to why—

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Pardon me, Mr. Chair, but there is no interpretation coming through.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Is it back, Monsieur Thériault?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Yes. I would ask my colleague, Ms. Goodridge, to start over, seeing as there was no interpretation. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Okay.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Since it's been a couple of weeks since we last met to discuss this, I think it would be an important refresher, especially considering we have some substitutions, to understand the intent behind this amendment.

When things are measured, they are done. While I do understand that there have been some arguments as to the ability and to what we would see in a five-year-out or different time period, I do think having a review and assessing the effectiveness would be critically important to ensuring that we're actually achieving the goals we're setting out to achieve.

With that, I would just urge everyone to vote in favour of this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Are there any further interventions with respect to CPC-4?

Seeing none, shall CPC-4 carry?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 4 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 5)

There is one amendment proposed for clause 5. That is is G-4.

Go ahead, Mr. van Koeverden.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's nice to be back.

Government amendment four proposes to amend clause 5 by replacing lines 27 to 31 on page 4 with the following:

referred to in that section are advertised in a manner that is primarily directed at persons who are under 13 years of age;

(e.2) limiting the forms of advertising to which section 7.1 applies;

(e.3) defining “sugars” and “saturated fat” for the purposes of section 7.1;

The intent here is that the proposed amendment is to provide sufficient regulation-making authorities to define the scope of foods in advertising activities subject to prohibition, and that these are foundational elements necessary to implement a regulatory approach.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. van Koeverden.

Are there any further submissions with respect to amendment G-4?

Seeing none, shall G-4 carry?

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 5 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 6)

We have one amendment proposed for clause 6.

Mr. van Koeverden.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's simply to replace lines 32 and 33 on page 4 with the following:

This Act comes into force on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

That is amendment G-5.

Is there any further discussion?

Go ahead, Mr. Jeneroux, please.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I'm just curious as to whether we can get some advice from our friends over there on the legislative clerk side on this. I thought there was, typically, different wording when it comes to a bill. I guess I'd like, maybe, just some explanation about how this is different from that wording.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Jeneroux.

The legislative clerk is going to take a run at it, and if the department has anything to add, we'll ask them to chime in, as well.

Go ahead, Mr. Vaive.

[Justin Vaive, Legislative Clerk]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Generally this amendment would hand over the ability for the coming into force to be determined by regulation once, presumably, that process is done. That is something that does occur from time to time in bills.

In terms of the rationale as to why, I wouldn't venture to speculate. I would hand it over to the mover of the amendment or perhaps the officials to comment on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

We can start with the officials.

Do you have anything to offer in connection with that question?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Given that the prohibition now relies on regulations to be made to operate, defining which foods and some of the scope, we need regulations to be in place when it comes into force. Typically we would bring in an order in council to bring it all in at the same time as the regulations are made, so technically it lines up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Is there anything further?

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I just think it's odd because, most times, regulations would often have to come into force anyway. Why is this different from just the usual royal assent? I'm not sure if the legislative clerk is in a position to answer that. I'm guessing probably not. It just seemed a little odd from our perspective when we were reviewing this that it wouldn't just be like most private member's bills, coming into force upon royal assent.

[Justin Vaive]

Generally, when a bill doesn't have a provision for coming into force, you're exactly right; it does come into force upon royal assent. However, it does happen from time to time that legislation has a specific coming-into-force provision, which might be set out as is currently written in the bill or perhaps in the form of what this amendment suggests, which would specify by a certain date or at some point in the future when the Governor in Council deems it ready to come into force.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Go ahead, Dr. Kitchen, please.

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

Thank you for the comments.

I'm not a geek in the sense of legalese, but the reality is to understand that from a public point of view. The reality that I've always looked at is that, once it has royal assent, it comes into place. Now we're suggesting that an order in council puts it into place. How do you explain that to the general public? Right now, it's still too confusing.

[Justin Vaive]

Mr. Chair, I wouldn't want to venture into the reason why the amendment itself is being suggested or proposed. What I would confine my remarks to is simply to say that from time to time legislation is not ready to come into force immediately upon royal assent, there is some background work that is required in terms of regulations, and the coming into force date is pushed back until such time as that work is done.

Again, if the officials or the mover of the amendment have a specific reason or would like to provide additional information, I would leave that up to the officials and the member.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Go ahead, Mr. van Koeverden.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

I would leave it up to the officials to describe what types of regulations might need to be developed, but I know that developing good regulations takes time and that this amendment would ensure the government has sufficient time to develop, consult on and publish those regulations without having a deadline.

Of course, the members on this side—and I think I speak for others as well when I say this—would like it to be done as quickly as possible. There are billboards around the parliamentary precinct about how urgent this is, and I agree.

I hope that it can be done as expediently as possible, but I don't want that to have an impact on the nature of the work of developing those regulations.