Bill S-228 (Historical)

Child Health Protection Act

An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (prohibiting food and beverage marketing directed at children)

This enactment amends the Food and Drugs Act to prohibit food and beverage marketing directed at persons under 17 years of age.

Child Health Protection Act

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I stand before the House to speak to Bill S-228, a bill that calls for changes to the Food and Drugs Act to prohibit the marketing of unhealthy food and beverages directly to Canadian children under the age of 17.

Bill S-228 is meant to address childhood obesity. We can all recognize that childhood obesity is a legitimate public policy concern. As members of Parliament, parents, aunts, uncles, members of the community, we all want to see our children and youth thrive and live healthy lives. However, Bill S-228 is far from the solution. It is a distraction from the urgent need to explore the real causes of childhood obesity, namely, the lack of balance between diet, screen time, and physical activity.

Evidence does not support that marketing of unhealthy foods and beverages is the true cause of childhood obesity in Canada. Childhood obesity is a complex and multi-dimensional problem. A holistic approach that takes into account the full set of causes of childhood obesity would better serve Canadians in the interest of truly protecting our children from the negative impacts of obesity on their health and well-being, thus encourage long lives filled with healthy lifestyles.

The main issue I wish to address after reading Bill S-228 is where the evidence and science is that supports the very purpose of the bill. Statistics Canada data suggest that added sugar consumption has been declining over the past two decades. During the same period, obesity rates have continued to rise. This finding was extremely significant, considering the bill states in its preamble that there is widespread marketing of food and beverage to children and restrictions to the marketing of unhealthy food and beverages to children must be mandated to curb the rapid growth of childhood obesity in Canada.

I strongly encourage my colleagues in the House to read Bill S-228. It should not take them more than five minutes of their time. They will note that the bill as currently drafted is extremely vague and leaves too many doors open to unintended consequences. We do not know yet what constitutes unhealthy food.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Do you think these sugar-sweetened...? How can we educate our kids to avoid those sugary drinks? I know that Bill S-228 is coming, and I'm speaking on that, too. Besides that, how can we give the correct message to our youth or other people to avoid that 100% sugar juice and to eat more food?

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

moved that Bill S-228, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (prohibiting food and beverage marketing directed at children), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to stand here today as the sponsor of Bill S-228, the child health protection act.

I would like to begin by commending the hon. Senator Greene Raine for introducing this bill last fall, and for her tireless efforts to support healthy choices for our children.

This bill was grounded in the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology's own study on obesity in Canada, published in March 2016, and was debated by that committee during its review of the legislation.

It has long been established that advertising works. What I mean by this is that advertising is an effective tool for influencing potential customers' attitudes and behaviours. If this were not true, then advertising would not be a long-standing multi-billion dollar industry. This principle applies to all potential customers, including children. Now, more than ever, our children are exposed to a barrage of advertisements for unhealthy foods and beverages. It therefore follows that those who are marketing their products to children will be affecting children's eating decisions. In fact, recent trends confirm that this is indeed the case.

One in three Canadian children is either overweight or obese. We know that obesity is linked to chronic illnesses, such as heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and some cancers. During my career as a physician, I witnessed these trends first-hand on a regular basis. I noticed more of my patients who presented were overweight or obese, and I was seeing instances of heart disease and type 2 diabetes in younger and younger people. Public health data across many countries confirms that this trend is widespread. Alarmingly, whereas 20 years ago type 2 diabetes was a disease primarily of older adults, this diagnosis is increasingly being made in children. It is obvious that we need to take bold action now. Our children's health and lives are at stake, and they deserve better.

This issue falls squarely within the Minister of Health's mandate to introduce new restrictions on the commercial marketing of unhealthy foods and beverages to children.

The extent to which our children are exposed to the advertising of foods and beverages that are high in sugar, salt, and saturated fats cannot be overstated. For example, according to a recent study of the 25 million online food and beverage ads that Canadian children see every year on their favourite websites, 90% are for unhealthy products. As a result, our children are eating fewer fruits and vegetables than recommended and more unhealthy foods and beverages.

Taking action today to restrict the marketing of unhealthy foods and beverages means that we can help children have a healthy start in life, based on a foundation of healthy eating choices, and protection from the influence and manipulation of those who would market unhealthy foods and beverages to our children. Bill S-228 serves to provide such protection.

If Bill S-228 is to give our children the protection they deserve, it is imperative that, before being passed into law, we take steps to ensure that this legislation will withstand any legal challenges that may come about. This is why I will be introducing amendments to this bill.

The first amendment would change the definition of “children” from under 17 years old to under 13 years old. Although some stakeholders have expressed reservations with changing the age, it must be understood that there is a very real potential that this bill could be challenged in its present form under the law.

In recent months, as Health Canada has consulted with stakeholders, it has become increasingly obvious that any regime built on restrictions aimed at older teenagers would be subject to considerable legal risks associated with the restriction on freedom of expression under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These are risks I cannot ignore, because a court loss could jeopardize this entire effort. The proposed change will allow us to take bold action to protect our most vulnerable populations now.

There is a strong precedent for defining a child as under 13 years of age in the context of advertising restrictions in the province of Quebec. In fact, the Quebec legislation withstood a charter challenge and was fully upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada. That clear precedent supports the decision to amend the definition of children to those under 13. However, I will not stop there.

Recognizing there is evidence showing the vulnerability of teenagers to marketing, as well as the experience in Quebec where industry shifted marketing efforts to teenagers when restrictions were imposed on younger children, I will move an additional amendment to Bill S-228 at committee. Specifically, I will move an amendment to require Parliament to conduct a mandatory review of the legislation, with a particular focus on the definition of children, within five years of the act coming into force.

The objective of the parliamentary review will be to monitor whether the lower age limit results in increased advertising to teenagers and whether any provisions of the act need to be adjusted to ensure the continued and full protection of our children.

I have also been informed that the Minister of Health has instructed Health Canada to invest significant resources over the next five years and to work closely with the health stakeholder community to ensure the necessary research is undertaken to determine whether new forms of advertising are impacting children and whether teens are being exposed to more marketing as a result of restrictions on marketing to younger children. I applaud the minister for her leadership in this area.

Through the parliamentary review of the legislation, the government will also be obliged to report publicly on compliance with the bill and on progress toward our common goal of healthier children of all ages. This work will ensure that, if necessary, we will have the data needed to support a broadening of restrictions at a future date.

While parents have an important role in choosing what their children eat, it is difficult for them to compete with or to completely control their children's exposure to marketing. Parents and caregivers deserve a supportive environment where children are not constantly targeted by unhealthy food marketing.

Bill S-228 is but one effort to tackle the epidemic of obesity and chronic disease in our country. If anyone doubts my resolve or the resolve of our government, he or she need only look at the comprehensive suite of measures we have under way. These initiatives range from restricting marketing to children; to new front-of-pack labelling to flag foods high in sugar, salt, and fat; and to a revamped Canada Food Guide.

One of the fundamental responsibilities of a government is to protect its most vulnerable citizens and few citizens are more vulnerable than our children. I expect that everyone in the House can appreciate how significant Bill S-228 is for the health of our children today and for generations to come.

We will not let up in the fight to reduce obesity and chronic disease. I ask all members for their support on this important issue.

[Dr. Jeff Critch]

Thank you.

Honourable members and invited guests, thank you for this opportunity to reflect on revisions to Canada's food guide.

Canada's food guide, which was first released in 1942 as Canada's official food rules, has been a pivotal document for both individual counselling and policy. As a representative of the Canadian Paediatric Society, the CPS, I wish to acknowledge our support of the government's commitment to review and enhance food policy in Canada, including ongoing assessments and revisions of Canada's food guide.

The CPS is a voluntary professional association representing more than 3,000 pediatricians, subspecialists, residents, and others who care for children and youth. The CPS is committed to advancing the health of children and youth by nurturing excellence in health care, advocacy, education, research, and support of its members. Our current strategic framework is guided by the principles of nurturing every child's promise, ensuring access to care, and achieving equity.

As professionals dedicated to improving the health of children and youth, we are acutely aware of the importance of healthy nutrition in optimizing children's health and development. We are also cognizant of the important influence that families and the food environment play in the quality and quantity of foods consumed.

Daily, we are confronted with the effects of poor nutrition on our children and youth. Non-communicable, nutrition-related chronic diseases place a staggering burden on Canadians and Canadian society. This is reflected by increased morbidity, increased health care utilization, decreased quality of life, premature mortality, and reduced economic productivity. Most important, these diseases are largely preventable and often begin in childhood.

It is through this perspective of maximizing beneficial impacts on the health of children and youth that I will focus many of my comments today.

The CPS has been following the current process for revisions to Canada's food guide. We are aware of Canada's healthy eating strategy, initiatives to reduce sugar consumption, and the nutrition north Canada program. The CPS has a history of working closely with Health Canada and other associations.

The CPS has been encouraged by Health Canada's process in revising Canada's food guide. Enabling significant public consultation and restricting the potential adverse influence of industry are positive components. Health Canada's proposed guiding principles are succinct, evidence-based, and comprehensive. The recognition of the importance of providing guidance in the Canadian context with the integration of the concepts of the socio-economic determinants of health, cultural diversity, and environmental sustainability is vital.

Specifically, we are supportive of the advice provided in the proposed guiding principles of encouraging water consumption, the regular intake of a diversity of fruits and vegetables, and increasing plant-based sources of protein. We are supportive of limiting the intake of processed and prepared foods high in sodium, salts, and saturated fats, as well as the avoidance of beverages high in sugars. We agree with recognizing the essential importance of food literacy and skills in selection and preparation. On an associated topic, we strongly support Health Canada's decision to prohibit the use of partially hydrogenated oils in foods.

It is our hope and expectation that the proposed guiding principles will be adequately reflected in the advice and tools developed by Health Canada in the revised Canada food guide.

There are, however, a few issues to highlight for specific attention. It is important that Canada's food guide continue to be framed as just one component of a national food strategy. Canada's food guide and associated tools must be evidence-based, address cultural variability, and allow practicality of use. It must remain a tool for policy development that can be leveraged to optimize food environments.

It is vital that implementation of the advice provided in Canada's food guide is inclusive of vulnerable populations, including those at risk because of age, literacy, finances, and/or culture. Tools need to be developed specifically to ensure vulnerable populations are reached. For children and youth, this may include formats designed for social media, web- and phone-based applications, and/or the school curriculum. These formats need to be multimodal and attractive for the users. Other groups that will need to be targeted include those consuming alternative diets, such as vegetarian, vegan, and/or gluten free.

Canada's food guide and the associated tools should enable individual users to understand nutrition quality and energy balance.

Youth will need to learn the skills to understand nutrition labelling. Portion size will be a key component to address. This is a complex issue and will vary based on age, gender, and food type. Related to this is the importance of ensuring that appropriate-sized portions are served in restaurants and other venues.

Stringent definitions of what constitutes healthy and unhealthy foods and beverages are vital to consumers and regulators. Specific advice around ways to increase fruit and vegetable intake is needed. This should include education around the benefits of fresh, frozen, and canned food choices when fresh foods are unavailable or more expensive.

Specific education and tools highlighting the beneficial role of adequate fibre in the Canadian diet should be developed.

Effective educational tools and messaging emphasizing the negative impact on health of processed foods high in sugar, salt, and saturated fats is important. Specific attention needs to be directed towards reducing sugar-sweetened beverages.

Consideration would need to be given to how best to present dietary advice in Canada's food guide. Central to this is the decision regarding whether to categorize based on food type, such as fruits and vegetables, grains, milk and alternatives, or in a manner similar to that utilized in the Brazilian dietary guidelines, in which categorization is based on the level of processing. While there are pros and cons to each approach, a hybrid system incorporating categorization by level of processing within each food type may be a useful model.

As outlined in section D of the proposed guiding principles, recognition of the impacts that food production, distribution, and consumption have on the environment is an important consideration. In addition to supporting health, food policies should promote sustainability of the food supply and minimization of the environmental footprint.

The CPS recognizes that industry plays an important role in shaping our food environment and economy. This role can at times be in alignment with favourable nutritional policy and at other times be contradictory to it. Nevertheless, to protect and promote optimal food environments, effective policies would need to be developed to promote optimal actions from industry.

Associated with this is the importance of protecting children from unfavourable influence from industry. To this end, the CPS supports measures to ban marketing of unhealthy foods to children, the use of taxation policy to discourage consumption of unhealthy foods, and the use of subsidies to encourage consumption of healthy foods.

Policies should also be designed to reduce and eradicate poverty, as this is tightly related to food consumption.

The CPS recognizes that many of these issues are being explored by the present government, such as through Bill S-228.

Policies and tools should encourage and facilitate communities and industries to embrace changes designed to improve the food environment. These would include banning unhealthy foods near and in schools, redesigning grocery and corner stores to present fruits and vegetables in a more attractive setting, supporting the proliferation of local farmers' markets, and increasing access to community centres and fitness facilities. It is hoped that such policies will foster a collegial atmosphere in which all stakeholders, including consumers, policy-makers, and industry, are committed to optimizing and strengthening the living environment for Canadians, that being a healthy population with a high quality of life, living in clean environments, and working in robust economies.

Government must leverage policy and, when needed, legislate mandatory and enforceable regulations on industry to effect the desired changes. We believe such activity can be achieved while enabling a strong Canadian economy. Importantly, Health Canada would need to maintain and enhance its commitment to monitoring the effects of implemented interventions to ensure that the desired changes to food consumption and food environment were achieved. To this end, sufficient funding and even expansion of the Canadian health measures survey on chronic disease and nutrition quality will be needed.

In summary, one of our biggest challenges will be using the knowledge and guidance provided by a revised Canada's food guide to effect the individual and societal changes necessary to maximize health benefits for all Canadians. Considerable thought will need to be invested in developing policy, legislation, tools, and messaging that effectively communicate key information on topics such as nutrient quality, portion size, and healthy, active living. Reaching vulnerable populations, including those separated by education, poverty, language, and/or culture, will need to be a high priority. Education, increased nutritional literacy, development of basic cooking skills, and improved food environments will be needed.

Despite these current issues, Canada sits in a relatively enviable position moving forward. We have some understanding of the magnitude of the problem facing us. We have some understanding of the root causes. We have a fair idea of where we want to be. We have evidence to guide us in making the needed interventions to effect those changes, but it won't be easy. For any complex problem, altering human behaviour and environments can be challenging. There can be inertia to change. There can be opposition to change. Interventions will need to be varied, multi-focal, and integrated. Interventions need to be effective, evidence-based, and inclusive.

Disenfranchised and vulnerable populations need to be specifically targeted. Fortunately, Canada is a country rich in financial, intellectual, and human resources. We have shown a willingness and we have a capacity to effect favourable change for all Canadians. We have a responsibility to do so. Health Canada has been engaged in this process and their continuing leadership is vital.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

I appreciate the motion, but you kind of hijacked my agenda. Before we go to that, I just want to go through the things we have to do before we get to a new subject. If that's okay with you, I'll just go through those things.

We still have a few meetings before the pharmacare study is finalized. That's when we come back. We are going to have Bill C-326, drinking water guidelines. It has already been referred to us, so we have to fit that into our schedule sometime. I think it's April, or we have 12 months to do that one. We have to do a study on drinking water before April. Then we have private member's motion M-132, on federally funded health research. We have to do that within a year, just so you know.

We have, coming sooner or later, Bill S-228, which is going to be really interesting. That's food and beverage marketing to children. We have Bill S-5 which is anticipated to come. That's on tobacco packaging. It is going to be another interesting one.

Those are just things we have to do, and then we should talk about a new subject, as Mr. Davies has proposed. Actually, indigenous health was the next one on the priority list that we originally established way back when we had 17. We knocked it down to priorities and that was the next one, along with home care and palliative care, and organ donation, after that.

Now I'm going to go back, and I'm sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Davies—

[The Chair, Liberal, Filomena Tassi]

I call the meeting to order.

Today, we are looking at Bill S-228, Doug Eyolfson's bill.

Does anyone have any issues with this bill?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Given that you've already estimated $1.8 billion in potential costs for your members just to comply with this new set, are you worried about further compliance costs based on Bill S-228?

[Michi Furuya Chang]

Yes. With regard to marketing to kids and Bill S-228, you are correct. It's received first reading. Our position on that, and our concern, is this division of unhealthy versus healthy foods. I can tell you as a dietician and as a nutritionist that we believe in overall healthy eating patterns, and on healthy and unhealthy eating patterns and healthy and unhealthy lifestyles, one food in and of itself should not be deemed or categorized as healthy versus unhealthy. That's the foundation of our position on the marketing to kids bill.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

It's my understanding that Bill S-228 has already passed the Senate and is at first reading in the House of Commons. That in particular talks about unhealthy foods and is very generic. Do you have concerns about throwing that into the mix? I imagine packaging is a form of advertisement. I'm sure many would say that even where it's placed on a shelf is a form of advertisement.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

In reference to Bill S-228, it actually says the advertisement of “unhealthy foods”. First of all, there's no definition of “unhealthy”. In your market, where you might say, having higher sugar content coupled with nutritious minerals and other nutrients...it's a question of what is healthy. Some people might say cheese is very healthy, but again, it depends on your interpretation of what's healthy and what's unhealthy. Does that create a lot of certainty for your industry?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

I'm going to interrupt you, because I don't know how much time I have.

This was something that I think Mr. Fergus brought up. We were asking questions of the Canadian Convenience Stores Association.

What is the difference between the proposed S-228 and Quebec's advertising law?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

In your presentation you also mentioned advertising. You made reference to Bill S-228, as have other witnesses before the committee who brought forward their views on it. You mentioned that your industry is regulated, and you have standards that you abide by.

Do people who are members of your association target children for advertising? How do you treat children aged zero to 12, and then 13 to 18?

[Jim Goetz, President, Canadian Beverage Association]

Thank you very much for inviting me here once again to present on behalf of the Canadian Beverage Association, which represents the non-alcoholic, non-dairy beverage industry.

We believe it is essential as a supercluster-identified sector that we engage with the government and Parliament to help create Canadian jobs, encourage economic growth, and drive investment. CBA members generate employment for more than 60,000 Canadians at better-than-average wages. Beverage industry salaries are, on average, 26% to 38% higher than the average for all manufacturing industries across the country. We contribute over $500 million in tax revenue to the federal government and an additional $400 million in provincial taxes.

We are a leading partner of small business in Canada. The sales of our members' products through grocery stores, food service vending machines, and convenience stores support tens of thousands of independent jobs and hundreds of thousands of retail and food service jobs.

I'm pleased that the MPs on this committee come from the Northwest Territories, British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, and Prince Edward Island. As an industry, we have a connection with each of your regions. For example, our members work with farmers to source sugar beets from Alberta and buy corn from Ontario. We purchase apples from B.C., Quebec, Ontario, and Nova Scotia, purchasing from 350 apple growers in Quebec alone. Our aluminum cans come from Whitby, Ontario. We employ people at distribution facilities in the Northwest Territories, and some of North America's largest manufacturing and distribution facilities are located in the 905 region.

Our members are making significant capital investment in Canada, bringing new technologies and efficiencies into the sector, such as having the largest fleet of hybrid trucks in North America. All the while, we employ well-paid, hard-working, middle-class Canadians. Our innovation is not limited to investment in our businesses. We also invest in strategies that will help support better health outcomes for Canadians. Launched in 2015, our industry-led “balance calories” initiative aims to reduce the calories consumed by Canadians from non-alcoholic, non-dairy beverages by 20% by 2025.

Very shortly, the Conference Board of Canada, our partner in our balance calories initiative, will be releasing our second report on the impact of our initiative. We expect that this report will show at least a 9% decrease in calories—calories being sugar—in our products since 2015. This means that in just 11 years our industry has already removed 29% of the calories that Canadians consume from our beverages. This is unprecedented in the food and beverage industry. As shown in the Ads Standards 2016 compliance report on the Canadian children's food and beverage advertising initiative, we have a positive record as an industry in adhering to our guidelines on marketing to children, which ban the marketing of our products to children under the age of 12.

The beverage sector shares the government's vision of building economic growth and benefits in Canada through innovation in the agrifood sector and throughout the food and beverage value chain. However, our members are concerned about increasing barriers to growth, including financial risks that impact our members on a daily basis, and speculation around a sugar tax and significant regulatory changes. The changes to front-of-pack labelling and CFIA regulations alone, according to Industry Canada, are estimated to cost the food and beverage sector over $2 billion over the next several years.

Coupled with those expenses, we understand that an economic impact analysis of the severe restrictions on advertising inherent to Bill S-228 commissioned by the Association of Canadian Advertisers shows a multi-billion dollar impact on GDP and revenues for Canada's struggling media industry and sponsorship of amateur sports, cultural events, and community giving; lost tax revenues for Ottawa and the provinces; and tens of thousands of job losses.

The CBA and its members recognize that obesity poses a critical challenge to individuals, public health, and government resources. At the same time, Statistics Canada data shows that the consumption of calories from beverages in Canada has continued to decline as obesity rates, unfortunately, have increased over the last 20 years. Proponents of a tax on our industry often point to Mexico as a success story, but the data coming out of Mexico's own reports is demonstrating that this is not the case. It shows that obesity has continued to rise. The revenue from the tax has also continued to rise, and 60% of that revenue is coming from Mexico's poorest households. We also know that there have been 11,000 job losses up and down the value chain. These are not the markers of a successful health or tax policy.

The Mexican tax also applies to a broad range of products, not just beverages, so even with that broad array of products targeted for taxation, there are no positive health outcomes. Why would anyone think that a narrow tax on products that supply 4% of calories to Canadians would make any difference?

What we are asking government and your committee to do, Mr. Chair, is quite simple. Protect our jobs and investment in Canada by ensuring regulation, policy, and taxation measures are principle-based, science-based, and equitable. Recognize that the Canadian beverage market is already evolving in a positive and significant way, and refrain from implementing any targeted attacks on a single industry.

In conclusion, the beverage sector has built its success on science, evidence, and innovation, and we continue to be encouraged by a chance to work with a government that understands the importance of public policy that works for Canadians and not against Canadians or Canadian workers.

Thank you.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I have another question for Mr. Chera.

You have members in Quebec, right? Some convenience stores from that province are members of the Canadian Convenience Stores Association.

In Quebec, we have long had legislation that prohibits the marketing of certain products to minors. I can buy chips and chocolate bars at a convenience store close to my home.

I assume that the intent of Bill S-228 is the same. I can't imagine it being any different. Are you aware of the situation in Quebec? How can those two objectives be combined? I am talking about selling products, but without marketing them to young people.

[Satinder Chera]

No. We've been very clear that in terms of controlled substances, the rules are very clear, and we support the government's initiatives to ensure that they don't fall into the hands of minors.

With respect to Bill S-228, my observation is this: what impact will it have on retailers? It's an obvious question. We're just making the observation that we don't know to date if there will be any implications for employees. That's the question we've received from our members, and it's one that we've asked the government.