Honourable senators, two senators rose simultaneously to speak on this matter.

Please be seated. Please take your seat, Senator Bellemare.

As the two senators rose before the matter was called and they rose simultaneously, it’s generally in the discretion of the Speaker to decide which one stands first.

In this case, Senator Bellemare, I should point out that Senator Wallin is starred on this matter, which means she has either already started debate or has sought leave to adjourn a second time. If you were to speak now, she would lose her right to speak.

My question is, Senator Bellemare, are you ceding to Senator Wallin before I have to make a decision about who stood first?

I can’t speak after. Her comment suggests that she would ask leave and I could speak later. I can’t. His Honour just explained why.

Normally the practice is that, with leave of the Senate, if a senator rises and is going to exhaust the right of another senator to speak, the matter can stay adjourned in your name, Senator Wallin, and you can speak after Senator Bellemare.

Honourable senators, if Senator Bellemare speaks first, is leave granted that the matter remain adjourned in the name of Senator Wallin?

I have a question. Is Senator Bellemare asking leave to speak now? If your question were that, it would be a different response.

I saw two senators rising simultaneously.

In the past, it has always been the Speaker’s decision to show courtesy to the leadership if they rise at the same time as other senators. But I explained to Senator Bellemare that to do so in this case would take away the right of Senator Wallin to speak.

However, as Senator Bellemare has pointed out that if the Senate agrees and leave is granted, Senator Wallin can speak after Senator Bellemare.

Is leave granted, honourable senators, that the matter remain adjourned in the name of Senator Wallin so that, to be clear, she can speak following the comments of Senator Bellemare? Is leave granted, honourable senators?

I hear a “no.”

I am, as I understand it, in the middle of speaking. I adjourned this matter because I had not completed my remarks, so I am in the midst of my speech and would like to be able to continue with that. It has been adjourned with an asterisk and I am standing to do that. I have spoken to the table about it. I have given everybody that I can notice.

Back to you, Senator Bellemare. Given that leave is not granted, do you agree to have Senator Wallin speak first so she will not lose her right to speak?

Thank you. Senator Wallin, on debate.

Thank you, Senator Bellemare. I appreciate that.

I want to conclude my remarks today on Bill S-228 because it highlights, I think, the work of our committees, why that work is so important and why we must consult with the people affected by legislation if we are to do our jobs.

We would not be this late in the legislative process with so many unanswered questions had proper consultation occurred on Bill S-228.

Colleagues, I think we can all agree that overly sweet, salty, fatty products ought not to be advertised to children. I want to make it clear that I don’t disagree with the original intent of this bill. What we do know standing here today is that concerns about this bill come at a time of great uncertainty in our domestic food industry and in our ability to trade globally.

Statistics Canada just announced today that net farm income of agricultural producers fell by 45 per cent in 2018, the largest percentage decrease since 2006. Northern communities are experiencing food shortages on staple products, affecting 40 per cent of the population in Nunavut. Lower income families across the country are finding it more difficult than ever to meet the recommendations of Canada’s new food guide. We must, we need to balance the economics of our health and the health of our economy.

This week a paid ad appeared in several Saskatchewan newspapers, in Ottawa and online, falsely stating that I am blocking legislation to protect the health of children. I have done no such thing. Childhood obesity is an epidemic and we all agree that kids don’t need to be sold on more pop or chocolate bars. The original intent of Bill S-228 was to stop advertising of these foods to children under 17 years of age.

Here’s the problem: Bureaucrats at Health Canada will be the ones deciding what is and isn’t declared unhealthy. While they have not actually written the rules yet, they have admitted that any product with over 5 per cent salt, fat or sugar will be deemed unhealthy.

This is why I have referred to this as the “bread is bad bill,” because most bread in the store or bakery would be over the limit, and so would most cheese and dairy products. Even two slices of an organic, premium loaf of bread has over 9 per cent of salt.

Canada already has strict rules, and the salt and fat content of baked goods already puts us well below that of other countries — 25 per cent below the U.S. and 40 per cent below Japan.

More troubling is that when the government labels something unhealthy, even for the purposes of advertising, it has unintended consequences, affecting everyone from parents making sandwiches for school lunches to the more than 65,000 grain farmers in Canada who want to sell their product at home or export it. Why would anyone want to buy or pay a fair price for a product that our own government has declared unhealthy in law?

Two weeks ago, I sent a letter to Senator Harder addressing some of the legal concerns that have been raised. In his response, he assured me that the government is confident that Bill S-228 is consistent with international law and Canada’s obligations. However, it would be helpful to know whether there was specific legal advice that the government received on this, and that leads them to believe that Bill S-228 will stand up to a legal challenge. I believe now is the time to address these concerns.

Colleagues, arbitrarily declaring a food as unhealthy does not serve us well. We should expect Canada to be a leader in the use of evidence-based scientific evaluation of food products, not a country that uses arbitrary designations.

Our farmers are already facing costly and arbitrary bans on canola, soybean, peas and pork. The stockpiles of canola are at their highest level since the 1980s and our producers are struggling to find new markets in the face of China’s ban on that product.

Whatever your views on the role of the Senate or senators, it and we have an important role in dealing with new laws. That is why I am surprised that the Heart and Stroke Foundation, which uses public donations to support health and research, would use some of those funds for a costly attack ad campaign, but I will leave that matter to future donors to decide if they think that is money well spent.

In the Senate, we are supposed to be a second pair of eyes and ears when it comes to finalizing legislation. We know this bill is flawed. Producers, grain growers, bakers, farmers and store owners know it. So do the parents who are trying to stretch their food dollar. They will feel the pinch if the price of bread goes up.

None of those directly impacted were properly consulted, and they must be before we go any further. The prairie-based agri‑food industry is a key multi-billion dollar economic sector and it affects us all, wherever we live.

All I want to do is to prevent those unintended consequences. So instead of passing a law we know may well end up in the courts, why not just fix it now? I believe we can craft a new and clearer law. We have a template from the Province of Quebec. This new, better and clearer law could target the real problem of childhood obesity and not sideswipe our farmers in the process.

The government, in its message, has proposed lowering the age of those targeted by advertising to children under 13. That is a very reasonable position, and in the event this legislation passes, I am asking that the government also delay the implementation for more than the proposed two years so that it might begin and conclude a proper consultation process with the people most directly impacted, so industry can prepare and change current production and manufacturing methods, so that government can seek and share legal advice on trade and export implications, and so the government can consider what compensation may be afforded to farmers, baked goods manufacturers and dairy producers for the loss of livelihood.

We need clarification on the regulations that still have not been provided by Health Canada, spelling out exactly what would be deemed an unhealthy food. And because we do not have those regulations, I ask that we look at the advisability of having the phrase “unhealthy foods” remain in the legislation without a clear definition.