Food and Drugs Act
Motion to Refer Motion and Message from Commons to Committee
May 28, 2019
Therefore, honourable senators, I move:
That the motion, together with the message from the House of Commons on the same subject dated September 19, 2018, be referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry for consideration and report.
It was moved by the Honourable Senator Wallin that the motion, together with the message from the house — may I dispense?
Is there any debate on the amendment?
Honourable senators, this is a good time for the speech I wanted to give before Senator Wallin’s. I understand that people might have concerns. Senator Wallin is very well-spoken, and her arguments in favour of sending this to committee for study may have been very convincing.
However, I believe it is time to vote on the message. Since a motion was moved, it should be simply rejected so that we can vote on the message.
Bill S-228 was introduced in the Senate on October 27, 2016 following an extensive six-day study in committee. The Senate passed the bill unanimously on September 28, 2017. You heard me correctly: unanimously. On September 19, 2018, the other place passed Bill S-228 with amendments; the vote was 210 in favour and 79 against. The Senate has therefore been seized with the message from the other place since September 19, 2018, nearly nine months, and there has been no progress since.
It is hard to understand why we are being asked today to refer the message to committee. Some will say that Bill S-228 is not a priority since it is not a government bill. That argument falls flat. Of course this is a Senate bill, but it also keeps one of the government’s key election promises. To that end, the government chose to work with our former colleague, Senator Greene Raine, to improve the bill and make it a Senate bill, even though Senator Greene Raine was a member of the Conservative group.
This is a sign of respect for the Senate and for the work of former Senator Greene Raine. The Senate should in turn show some respect and quickly proceed to a democratic vote on Bill S-228.
However, on May 4, 2019, in an article entitled “11th-hour lobbying by industry could kill law banning food marketing to kids,” CBC News reported that as a result of a lobbying campaign, senators may seek to prevent Bill S-228 from reaching a democratic decision.
This would be highly regrettable — this is what I was going to say. It is highly regrettable that we are now trying to postpone the vote on the message and to send this bill back to committee where, colleagues know, this bill will die. It will die on the Order Paper.
Honourable senators, this is a bill that the Senate initiated and unanimously adopted. If individual senators are opposed to Bill S-228, they should express that opposition transparently by proceeding to a democratic vote on two minor amendments covered by the message. They reduce the bill’s application from children under 17 to children under 13 and add a five-year review. These amendments are very minor and actually make the bill a little less strict than what the Senate has unanimously supported already.
The Senate should therefore vote on the amendments to Bill S-228 today and do its part to protect the health and well-being of Canadian children.
Right before our unanimous vote of September 28, 2017, Senator Patterson spoke eloquently in support of this bill — do you remember, senator? — with a heartfelt emphasis on what this bill means for children in Nunavut. Senator Patterson concluded by saying:
The health and well-being of our children must be at the centre of our laws and policies. This is why I’m voting in support of Bill S-228 and why I support prohibiting the marketing of food and beverages to children.
The sentiment that I share and shared with Senator Patterson was sincere in 2017 and remains so now.
For all these reasons, I am calling on you to quickly vote against Senator Wallin’s motion so that we can be sure to vote today on the government’s message.
I have a question, Your Honour.
You’re rising on a question?
Yes.
Would the senator take a question?
I will say “yes.”
Senator Bellemare, thank you for your speech.
Let me preface my question with a comment. You talked about the Honourable Senator Raine having been a member of this caucus. Indeed, she was, and she remained a member of this caucus until her day of retirement, contrary to what some other members who used to be members of our caucus did. They became members of the government.
Senator Bellemare, this is a private member’s bill. You say this is a private member’s bill, yet you, as the Deputy Leader of the Government, are putting your weight behind it. Why is the government, if they are that concerned about it and want this to move forward, not making it a government bill? They have had ample opportunity to make this a government bill, and we would not be in the situation we are in today.
It’s my pleasure to answer you with a smile, Senator Plett. I am a senator who is unaffiliated, and I feel deeply about this bill that Senator Raine supported. That is why I decided to make the speech today.
So you are not speaking as a representative of the government today; you are speaking as an individual senator?
Yes, indeed.
Honourable colleagues, I rise to support Senator Wallin’s motion to refer the message from the other place to the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. Senator Wallin has raised some important additional points related to this piece of legislation.
As I’ve said in this chamber previously, I support the intent of the bill. However, as of only a couple of weeks ago, we have been advised that Health Canada has not followed through on their promise made to us in the Agriculture Committee in December 2018. They said they would meet and consult with primary agriculture producers and processors as they prepared their guidance document. To date, I understand they have had one meeting — with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. While this is a very important national organization that supports the industry, it does not represent the entire agricultural sector and value chain.
Let me be clear: I support the principles of the bill. We need to be concerned about obesity in children. We also need to be concerned about obesity in adults. There is no doubt.
What I don’t support is the way that the concerns of the agriculture and agri-food sector have been dismissed and/or ignored as this bill has worked its way through the final few months. Primary producers and those involved in processing commodities to final products here in Canada must be listened to and consulted with to ensure the bill is the best for all Canadians. Thanks to regulations and protocols in place here in Canada, we have heard and know that the food grown and produced by Canadian farmers and food processors is considered some of the safest in the world. To have some of these foods now having the potential to be regarded as unhealthy to a subset of our population without proper consultation with industry, well, just makes me mad.
Additionally, I share Senator Wallin’s concern about the possibility of Canada gaining a negative international reputation due to the unforeseen consequences of this bill.
For all these reasons, I support my honourable colleague’s motion to refer the message to the Agriculture Committee so that the concerns of the industry are indeed heard and taken into account.
However, as we all know, this bill has been before us for some time, and it has been noted. So I hope this can be done as expeditiously as possible. I therefore urge my honourable colleagues to support the motion as well. Thank you.
I move the adjournment of debate in the name of Senator Dagenais.
It was moved by the Honourable Senator Martin, seconded by the Honourable Senator Wells, that further debate be adjourned in the name of Senator Dagenais until the next sitting of the Senate.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Sorry, senator. The motion for adjournment is on the floor. My apologies.
Senator Petitclerc, do you want to ask a question?
I did have a question, and I didn’t raise my hand high enough.
My apologies. With Senator Martin’s approval, we will defer the question on the adjournment if you wish to ask a question, Senator Petitclerc.
Senator R. Black, would you take a question?
Yes.
Thank you very much.
I have to ask this question because I’m very confused and, I have to be honest, offended by this amendment, by the speeches and by your support for this amendment. I don’t want to repeat everything that Senator Bellemare has been saying, but what we have in front of us is a message with two simple amendments. We also have in front of us a bill that has been there for almost 1,000 days. It was introduced by the Honourable Nancy Greene Raine. It was studied in the Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, and every member — Senator Eggleton was chair at the time — can tell you that we did a great and thorough job.
It was voted on unanimously by this chamber. It was studied in the House of Commons and passed with a majority. There were two consultations. There were 1,200 submissions from consumers, health professionals and the food industry. You yourself consulted and talked with Health Canada and got answers. You reported back on these answers to the Senate. It was referred to the Agriculture Committee for further study.
The reason I’m offended, the only question I have and the only question that is left is: What are you saying, exactly? Are you saying that we did not do our job, all of us, or that we’re incompetent? Is that what you’re saying?
I’m absolutely not saying that. I believe that there was significant consultation in the Social Committee prior to my being here in the chamber. I don’t think the opportunity existed for the Agriculture and Forestry Committee to ask, do enough consultations and have discussions so the unintended consequences mentioned by Senator Wallin could be looked at further. I do not believe there was enough consultation with the agriculture sector about the bill.
A question for Senator Black, if he would receive it.
Yes.
I wonder if Senator Black has discovered, as I have as I travel through rural Canada, that we talk about reconciliation yet there seems, in my experience — and I wonder if you have received the same kind of reaction — that there is a growing cleavage between urban and rural. People in rural Canada, many people, feel left out of the national discussion on important issues, whether it’s about gun control, tanker traffic or agriculture and its role in our society.
My impression is one that people in rural Canada feel really aggrieved at not having their views heard. Have you heard that as well?
Thank you, Your Honour. Yes, I have heard that as well, Senator Duffy. But I have also heard from the agriculture sector that they feel aggrieved as well on this particular bill.
It is moved by the honourable Senator Martin, seconded by the honourable Senator Wells, that further debate be adjourned in the name of the honourable Senator Dagenais until the next sitting of the Senate. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
All those in favour, please say, “yea.”
All those opposed, please say, “nay.”
In my opinion, the “nays” have it.
I see two senators rising. Do we have an agreement on the bell?
One hour.
The vote will take place at 4:03 p.m. Call in the senators.
