Health Committee on Dec. 6th, 2007

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Lui Temelkovski]

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Fletcher.

Now we'll move to Madam Wasylycia-Leis.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you, Mr.Chairperson.

First of all, I would suggest to Steven Fletcher that he take a little trip across the tracks in Winnipeg and go north and witness a community that has a very high number of aboriginal people who have access to almost no recreation facilities.

Point Douglas, the poorest and oldest neighbourhood in Canada, has no pool because it's shut down. It doesn't work. This government, like the previous federal government, wouldn't contribute part of the infrastructure funds or allocate specific infrastructure dollars for programs like that.

The North Winnipeg YM-YWCA has been shut down for over 10 years, and there was no help from this government or the previous government.

Mr. Chairperson, I would suggest that if this government is serious about dealing with the health needs of aboriginal children, it would look at family income and realize that we are talking about relatively low incomes, many of which are so low that the families don't pay taxes, yet they are being hit daily with programs that give higher benefit for higher incomes.

I would ask officials here--I would love to ask Mr. Fletcher, but I'll have to wait for another chance--why you haven't made recommendations to make sporting equipment purchases eligible under the credit. Why isn't there a recommendation to transform the tax credit into a refundable tax credit to reach low-income populations? The children's fitness tax credit does not meet the needs of low-income Canadians, particularly aboriginal and Métis and Inuit children and families, so why not expand the tax credit to make participation in non-organized sports and fitness programs part of this program? That's one question.

The other question is whether you could tell me if you have $1 million to help open the North Winnipeg YM-YWCA, which would serve a lot of aboriginal people and help prevent obesity. Would you agree to a percentage or to adding money to the infrastructure program to provide for those needs? That's one question.

The other question has to do with advertising. I've listened carefully to what's been said today, and I don't know whose responsibility this is, but I think we need to start looking at a different model in terms of advertising that affects children and teenagers. It should be along the lines of the Quebec model and along the lines of our committee recommendation. If it's not the responsibility of the CRTC, then is it the responsibility of government? Whose responsibility is it to bring forward a form of restriction on advertising targeted to children to deal with the fact that children and young people are now being bombarded with junk food advertisements?

I don't think anybody can deny that, no matter what code we've got. If you turn on the TV, kids are watching news. They're watching family programs and not just children's programs. They are being inundated--bombarded--with junk food advertisements, and the foods most frequently marketed to kids and their parents are energy-dense or high-fat foods. So is it not time we had a much more regulated model and actually restricted advertisement that has such damaging consequences?

I don't know how much time I have left, but could I get answers on both questions?

[Scott Hutton]

I can go first if you want.

If it's a question of banning a certain food from being advertised, the clear answer there is that it's Health Canada's responsibility. They set the regulations in that regard.

What we do at the CRTC is try to put an environment around the advertisements that are not banned, let's say. We have our code and we work with the industry in that regard. It is more of an enforcement mechanism.

We also work with the industry--and I think programs have been put in place on various fronts--to promote healthy living, to redirect existing advertising for certain products of that nature towards a more healthy advertising environment.

The companies have certainly heard the committee, and the industry heard the concern and put in place, through Linda in 2004, extra guidelines to reinforce our codes, and did the same thing again in April 2007. Linda, through her organization, is putting in front public service initiatives. Other entities, such as Concerned Children's Advertisers, are also moving ahead on that front and redirecting advertising. The biggest companies in the nation, the biggest broadcasters, are collaborating to redirect many ads and to redirect that effort towards the promotion of healthy living.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

If you want to give a quick answer...I still want to get another answer in.

[Linda Nagel]

The advertising industry, indeed, wants to be part of this multi-faceted problem. You can see from your own report last year that obesity rates, for example, in Quebec are higher than they are in Alberta. So certainly on advertising, we're putting new programs in place, but it's really important to recognize that we want to be part of a big solution to a big problem that is about many things. We hope we can contribute.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

On my four questions relating to the tax credit and infrastructure, is there someone from INAC or Finance...?

[Sean Keenan]

With respect to the tax credit, the expert panel recommended that where activities don't involve supervision, these not be covered by the credit, because their recommendation was that supervision was required to encourage active participation, and also for a safety reason, that essentially organized activities would require an adult. Therefore they recommended that self-directed activities not be eligible for the credit.

I should note that Bill C-28, which is currently before Parliament, implements the changes for DTC-eligible children that were announced by the Minister of Finance last December, where essentially the fitness tax credit is being enhanced. For children with disabilities, it in fact provides an additional credit equal to up to $500 where a DTC-eligible child has enrolled in a program that costs at least $100 and the equipment that is required for those DTC-eligible children would also be covered by the fitness tax credit.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Lui Temelkovski]

Thank you very much. There's not much time.

Madam Davidson, please.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think the one thing we realized when we were doing this study--and it certainly was an exhaustive one as we went through it and heard all of the witnesses--was that this was not a simple solution. It was a huge problem, but there was no simple solution. It involved many different aspects of society, from parenting methods to health methods, to physical activity, to any number of things. I think the committee recognized and realized that the issues that have been put in place and the methods that have been put in place by this government and by previous governments were not meant to be the be-all and the end-all. They were part of a large overall picture to try to improve the health of our children.

It's not just a federal government issue; it's federal, provincial, territorial, municipal. It's all-encompassing. I think when we did our report it reflected that, that it was going to require a lot of cooperation from all levels and from all aspects of society.

Having said that, I just want to talk a little more about the food mail program. In the government response it says it's being reviewed to determine whether it's the most effective and efficient means of addressing the issue. Could you just speak a bit to that review and where that might be going or what may have been done to this point?

[Andrew Lieff]

I'd be happy to. Thank you very much.

First of all, if I could be permitted, I'd just like to mention a number of things that happened preceding the review that set a bit of the context in terms of where we're moving with this program.

As you've heard, pilots have been launched in three communities that have a basket of priority perishable foods, like milk and vegetables, subsidized at a higher rate, meaning that the per kilogram costs of shipping those foods north are 30¢ now as opposed to 80¢ before. So we are now getting the data from those pilots that will be fed into the review to help us with our understanding of the difference that price makes in terms of people's choices. We need to do a little bit more work to understand what the nutritional impacts are, because price is only one determinant of consumer choice; of course, advertising and other things play a significant role too.

A number of things have happened with respect to the eligible foods. Some of the less nutritious foods have been removed from the eligible list. For example, fruit-flavoured drinks that aren't fruit juice were eliminated from the list in 2004. We've eliminated shipments of food to certain types of businesses and government institutions, such as mining, oil and gas, and construction companies on the business side, so that we can focus our efforts on the people in communities who need it the most.

As was recommended by the Auditor General in her report in 2002, which reviewed entry points, the government chose to focus its efforts in 2005 on a particular entry point with a challenge, the Churchill entry point. This year we've added Winnipeg to the Kivalliq region as an entry point. We're seeing significant price reductions in that region as a result of that change.

We have developed and are very close to launching a revised northern food basket, which will be a more appropriate price monitoring tool, so that we can understand a little better the impact of this program on prices. Canada Post—this week actually— announced.... Formerly they had guidelines on shippers for packaging and handling to improve food quality. Those have now been switched to requirements on suppliers. So there are enhanced requirements and further guidelines.

So work is ongoing to continually improve the program.

In connection with the review, and as everybody on this committee has pointed out, it's a multi-faceted issue. We realized early on that we needed an interdepartmental effort on this. So an interdepartmental team has been assembled, as we mentioned in our introductory remarks.

On the accountability and governance side—and accountability is another theme of this committee—we've launched an internal audit, which won't be directed by me, but will be fully independent under our internal audit group, on the governance in INAC of this program. It will determine and make sure we have the appropriate measures in place so that we can assure parliamentary committees and the government that there are appropriate management controls in place and thus we can assure value for money.

We are finalizing our project plan, although some projects have been launched. Again, I would invite this committee to.... We'll be following closely the concerns of this committee so that we can, as appropriate, build them into our review plan. As I also mentioned, we have a $20 million supplementary estimate before the House right now so that we'll be able to maintain rates for shipping food this year while we're carrying out the review without having to increase rates, which would surely increase the price of food.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Lui Temelkovski]

Thank you very much, Madame Davidson and Mr. Lieff.

If you could table those two reports you're showing us, that would be great.

Now we move to Madame Kadis.

[Susan Kadis, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm interested in asking a question of the gentleman and his associates from the CRTC.The government refers to this Canadian children's food and beverage advertising initiative but fails to mention collaboration with consumer organizations or academics.

In terms of--with respect to this particular initiative--companies devoting at least 50% of their advertising targeted to children under 12 to the promotion of healthy dietary choices and/or active living messages in practical terms, what does this mean in practical terms? Who is determining what is a healthy dietary choice? What criteria are being used? For example, what interest specifically does, say, a soft drink company have in promoting active living messages to children under 12 if it's not to encourage them to consume their products, which are largely unhealthy, specifically to trying to reduce childhood obesity?

In other words, who is making those determinations? What is your definition of “healthy dietary choices” or “active living messages”?

[Linda Nagel]

The Canadian children's food and beverage advertising initiative has very strict criteria on what will be determined to be a healthy dietary choice. For example, one criterion might mean that it meets the Heart and Stroke Foundation's health check program. Canada released its new food guide this year--Canada's food guide—so another could be if it meets a recommendation that's contained within Canada's food guide. Another would be if it can make a biological role claim. For example, calcium helps maintain healthy bones and teeth.

So there are very specific criteria. They have to be scientific standards. That's number one.

As well, some companies will be electing not to advertise directly in programming that's directed to children under 12.

So every company that's a participant is going to meet the initiative in its own way. Advertising Standards Canada will be publishing the commitments in early 2008, and we'll be happy to share them with you. We will also be ensuring, through a monitoring program, that the companies are meeting their commitments, and issuing reports on how each company does relative to its commitments.

So it will be a very transparent process.

[Susan Kadis, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

Is this on a voluntary basis? That's what I was hearing from the testimony.

[Linda Nagel]

We have regulations under the Food and Drugs Act. We have mandatory children's clearance, and then this is an additional voluntary initiative that's being made by 15 advertisers who happen to be among the largest. So it covers the overwhelming majority of advertising that is directed to children.

[Susan Kadis, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

But in your best opinion, in view of the magnitude and the seriousness of the problem, the challenge of the rising childhood obesity that we are facing here and all the associated adverse implications to our children's quality of life, to our health care system, to our workforce--in fact, to everything that is in our Canadian society--is it adequate and realistic to just rely on voluntary participation?

[Linda Nagel]

Again, this is additional. We already have the Food and Drugs Act. We have the children's code, which is strictly enforced, and we have added new guidelines to it, first in 2004 and then in 2007—that's this year—to make the standards for children's advertising more stringent. So we continue to work in that direction. This is another initiative on top of what.... These are all new things that are being added.

[Susan Kadis, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

Also--I guess this issue was referred to by Mr. Hutton--you will not prohibit any products from going on air through advertising, I believe. So if it were deemed that one particular product more than another product was having a significant adverse health impact on our children relative to childhood obesity and its rise, your position is that you would be advertising that product.

[Scott Hutton]

How the system works is that it is not our jurisdiction to ban, but certainly it is our responsibility to enforce a product that is banned.

So if Health Canada—whether it's with respect to a new food or with respect to, for example, smoking—has put restrictions on advertising in that domain, we implement it. And that's first and foremost and front and centre in all of our regulations, that you do not advertise such products. So it is quite clear that when a product is banned we enforce that side of the regulations, even though they are not our regulations. We build that into ours.

What I was trying to indicate earlier is that it's not the CRTC. We don't have the jurisdiction to determine if something is inappropriate. It's somebody else. That's the only thing. We implement the regulations. We implement the calls made by those with the jurisdiction.

[Susan Kadis, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

Of course, this serious problem must be a collective responsibility. But you're saying, essentially—if I can just close—that you are reliant on strong leadership from the federal government on the serious challenge of childhood obesity, and that's something we have not heard, that has been profoundly lacking in the government's response, so if we do not hear of a higher bar being set and really the federal government taking hold of this national problem, you will not be able to respond as best as you could.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Lui Temelkovski]

Thank you, Madame Kadis.

I will move on to Mr. Fletcher, and I understand he might be sharing his five minutes with Mr. Tilson.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

That's right, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. I'm really pleased that there are so many enthusiastic observers in the gallery.

Maybe I'll first just mention that I wish I could ask Judy Wasylycia-Leis why she feels that swimming pools should be built from Ottawa, at a local level, and why the NDP is so opposed to the sport tax credit. By implication, it seems they'd be interested in increasing taxes for families, rather than doing the right thing by making it—

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is not up to the member to ask Ms. Wasylycia-Leis questions. We are here to ask the witnesses questions. I'm sorry, but that question is out of order.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

I know I can't. I wish I could, but I can't.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Lui Temelkovski]

Pardon me, Mr. Fletcher, you can comment on anything you like about anyone's comments in here, but don't expect a reply from them. We have witnesses who I think you'd be better off asking for answers from.