Child Health Protection Act

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

Sponsor

Patricia Lattanzio  Liberal

Introduced as a private member’s bill. (These don’t often become law.)

Status

Third reading (Senate), as of Dec. 12, 2024

Subscribe to a feed (what's a feed?) of speeches and votes in the House related to Bill C-252.

Summary

This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament often publishes better independent summaries.

This enactment amends the Food and Drugs Act to prohibit the marketing of prescribed foods directed at persons under 13 years of age.

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Votes

Oct. 25, 2023 Passed 3rd reading and adoption of Bill C-252, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (prohibition of food and beverage marketing directed at children)
Sept. 28, 2022 Passed 2nd reading of Bill C-252, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (prohibition of food and beverage marketing directed at children)

Child Health Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

June 12th, 2023 / 11:05 a.m.


See context

Liberal

Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise today to discuss my bill, Bill C-252. I would like to take this opportunity to sincerely thank my colleagues for all their support and hard work in advancing the bill.

Bill C-252 essentially seeks to prohibit the marketing of foods that contain excessive amounts of sugar, sodium and saturated fats to children below the age of 13.

Additionally, the bill contains a provision that would mandate Health Canada to monitor the impact of the bill on the marketing of foods and beverages to teenagers between ages 13 and 18. This is done in an effort to ensure that food companies and advertisers will not simply turn around and amp up their marketing to teenagers to compensate for these new limits. Hence, the bill would provide an opportunity to verify the impact of this legislation and make adjustments if necessary.

One of the most concerning health issues for Canadians today is childhood obesity. To date, one in three children in Canada is either overweight or obese. We know that obesity leads to higher lifetime risk of developing severe health conditions, such as high blood pressure, diabetes and other chronic diseases.

Obesity increases the risk of at least 11 different cancers, and evidence has shown that diet-related diseases now kill more Canadians than smoking. In 2019, dietary risk factors contributed to an estimated 36,000 deaths, and the burden of chronic diseases, impacted mainly by diet and other modifiable risk factors, has been estimated to cost $13.8 billion in Canada.

Despite these dire consequences, the proportion of obese children has nearly tripled in the last 25 years. Our government has recognized these issues, and that was why it launched, in 2016, the healthy eating strategy to help make the healthier choice the easier choice for Canadians.

In 2019, the revised Canada's food guide provided Canadians with relevant, consistent and credible dietary guidance. In 2020, sodium reduction targets were published to encourage sodium reduction in food supply. However, there is still more work to be done.

It is a well-established fact that one of the major explanations for obesity is attributed to food marketing to children. The World Health Organization recognized the marketing of foods and beverages to children to be problematic as early as 2010. In fact, in a recent policy brief, it went as far as to call the evidence that food marketing altered food preferences, choices and purchases as unequivocal. Furthermore, the World Health Organization stated that food marketing not only affected children's physical health, but it also “threatens their emotional, mental and spiritual well-being”.

Children in Canada are currently being exposed to hundreds of ads every day. Whether it is through TV, online, video games or other forms of marketing, children are a highly targeted market. This is worrisome, because we know that children are especially vulnerable and susceptible to marketing. They are less able to understand or question the purpose or essence of the marketing and, as such, become easy targets of influence as they absorb and accept the messages.

A 2017 report on the health of Canadians has shown that well over 90% of food and beverage product advertisements viewed by children online or on TV have been for products that are high in sugars, sodium and saturated fats. It is not surprising then to learn that kids aged nine through 13 get more calories, almost 60%, from ultra-processed foods than any other age group.

This is especially problematic, because childhood is the period during which children learn and develop lifelong eating habits, and we know just how impactful food marketing is on the eating habits of our children.

We currently have a situation where corporations that produce foods and beverages with excessive amounts of sugar, sodium and saturated fats are allowed to market and target them to the most vulnerable members of our society, who then adopt problematic eating habits.

Furthermore, a 2018 UNICEF report argued that unhealthy food marketing to children constituted a violation of a number of children's rights as recognized in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which includes children's right “to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health.”

Bill C-252 would give us the tools to end the marketing of foods that contain the three excessive ingredients to kids and would enable them to make better and healthier food choices for themselves.

There have been some critiques of the bill. Some have said that it is not needed, because the Association of Canadian Advertisers has developed a code, “Code for the Responsible Advertising of Food and Beverage Products to Children”, which sets some limits on what is considered reasonable advertising of foods and beverages to children. They have argued that the code is enough and therefore any further legislative efforts is superfluous. To that I would say absolutely not.

A significant amount of research has shown time and again that self-regulatory codes do not work, as they are voluntary in nature and make it too easy for industry players to amp up or simply opt out. On the other hand, the development of a code clearly demonstrates that the industry players recognize the existence of a problem with marketing to kids. While this recognition is welcomed, ultimately their efforts simply do not suffice.

Dr. Warshawski, chair of the board of directors at the Childhood Obesity Foundation, during his appearance at the Standing Committee on Health, stated, “The fox should not...guard the henhouse”. We only have to look at the United Kingdom and Spain. They are respectively developing regulations to prohibit the marketing of foods to children after having witnessed first-hand that there was no positive outcomes from their existing self-regulatory industry codes.

Others have expressed concern that Bill C-252 could capture and prohibit the marketing of foods that are pantry stables, such as bread or milk. Let me be clear that is not the aim of this bill. The way the bill is framed it specifically directs Health Canada to develop regulations with the necessary nuances.

As Dr. Sharma from Health Canada repeatedly explained during her appearance at the health standing committee that the phrasing of this bill allowed for the creation of categories rather than the targeting of specific foods, which in turn would allow for a nuanced implementation and application.

In other words, foods that contain high levels of one of the targeted nutrients, but which are generally considered to be beneficial to children’s diets, such as fruits that contain high levels of sugars, would easily be exempted from the legislation. This process would be entirely based on an extensive regulatory process that would not only include consultations with a variety of actors, but also be based on strong scientific evidence regarding the nutritional needs of our children.

Some have also attempted to deform the bill and make it into something that it is not, which is an attempt to tell parents what they can and cannot buy for their children. This is simply and unequivocally false. Having raised three children myself, I strongly believe that parents have all the freedom in deciding and choosing how they want to raise and feed their children.

Bill C-252 does not target parents and adults, but strictly children. It is about removing the possibility of a billion dollar industry to reach our vulnerable children and manipulate them through the marketing techniques that will lure them into desiring products that we know could be detrimental to their health. Parents are and remain fully responsible for the food choices they make for their kids. The bill is simply about evening out the playing field and ensuring that parents can make decisions about the nutrition of their children without having to push back against powerful outside influences.

Finally, some have tried to argue that the bill should not be adopted because it would preclude other aspects of health from being addressed. For example, some people have said that the bill should not be adopted because they perceive it as a risk to the continuation of sports sponsorship and community sports. I would invite them to look at Quebec, as it serves as a model whereby sports sponsorship aimed at children has been restricted for over 40 years, yet community sports are still very much alive and well in the province. My bill’s focus on specific nutrients leaves plenty of space for a modified approach to sports sponsorship.

Similarly, critiques have advanced that, instead of passing this bill, we should focus on encouraging children to be more active. This view represents a very limited and ultimately insufficient approach to health. There is no doubt whatsoever that sports and physical activity play an important role in protecting the health of our children. However, health is a multifactorial element, and diet is just as important as physical activity. As such, our government has committed to significant investments to encourage children to move and to participate in team sports, notably with a $10-million investment in the recent 2023 budget. The supposed opposition between my bill and an approach more focused on active living is simply uncalled for. Both healthy eating and physical activity can, and in fact should, coexist. Ultimately, this is not a magic bullet that could fix childhood obesity all on its own. It is, however, an absolutely needed and key component of a broader, comprehensive strategy that needs to address this important issue.

It is also worth reminding everyone that this bill has been a long time coming. As many members may know, there have been previous attempts to advance similar legislation, which suffered from significant push-back. Most notable is former senator Nancy Greene Raine’s efforts with Bill S-228, which unfortunately got stalled in the Senate and died on the Order Paper. Similarly, we witnessed efforts by the opposition to stall this bill at the committee stage. Some members have even tried to represent the bill as lacking in consultation with stakeholders, when in fact we have heard, time and time again, the same arguments from the food and advertising industries, which have deployed extensive resources in trying to block this legislation. Industries have had plenty of opportunities to express their concerns regarding this bill, which have been heard and have been taken into account in my version of Bill C-252. Industries would continue to have opportunities to express themselves throughout the regulatory process.

In Canada, we have the chance to have a remarkable consensus across party lines regarding our approach to health. We all believe in the importance of working to ensure the healthiest possible life for every single Canadian, no matter their age or their means. Ultimately, I believe that every member of Parliament has good reasons to support this bill. That is why I would like to say to my colleagues that we should make sure we act as quickly as possible to get this bill passed. It is long overdue, and our children deserve it.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C‑252, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (prohibition of food and beverage marketing directed at children), as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

HealthOral Questions

April 27th, 2023 / 3:05 p.m.


See context

Québec Québec

Liberal

Jean-Yves Duclos LiberalMinister of Health

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel for her question, her leadership and her focus on the importance of protecting people's health.

That is why we are so proud of her bill, Bill C‑252, which protects children from the effects of food and beverage marketing. That is why we are introducing a new food guide and improving food labelling to help people make better food choices. That is why budget 2023 includes $10 million in funding for Participaction to help people, particularly youth, to increase their physical activity.

HealthCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

April 26th, 2023 / 3:50 p.m.


See context

Liberal

Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the following two reports of the Standing Committee on Health.

The committee's 12th report concerns the main estimates 2023-24.

In addition, I present the 13th report, in relation to Bill C-252, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act, on the prohibition of food and beverage marketing directed at children.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

The Chair Liberal Sean Casey

Colleagues, that brings us to the conclusion of the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-252.

Ms. Lattanzio, congratulations on your work in this regard.

To the officials, Dr. Sharma and Mr. Lee, thank you so much for your patience and professionalism in helping us through this process, and the same to the legislative clerks, Mr. Pagé and Mr. Vaive, for their technical advice.

Colleagues, I propose to suspend for five to 10 minutes in order for us to move in camera for committee business. The meeting is suspended.

[Proceedings continue in camera]

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.

Matt Jeneroux Conservative Edmonton Riverbend, AB

Mr. Chair, I will move CPC-4. I move that Bill C-252, in clause 4, be amended by adding after line 22 on page 4 the following:

(2) The review shall also examine whether, since their coming into force, sections 7.1 and 7.2 have been effective having regard to rates of obesity, high cholesterol, diabetes, sleep apnea, mental health issues, cancer and high blood pressure in children.

Essentially, Mr. Chair, this is getting at the metrics and results of this bill.

Thank you.

The Chair Liberal Sean Casey

Thank you. I'm now going to rule on the admissibility of CPC-3.

Bill C-252 amends the Food and Drugs Act to prohibit food and beverage marketing to persons under 13 years of age. CPC-3 proposes to direct the content of advertising, which is not contemplated in the bill. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 3rd edition, states on page 770, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to Committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the Bill.”

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment introduces a new concept to the bill that goes beyond the scope of the bill; therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

Unless there is a challenge to the chair, that brings us to G-3.

I believe that Mr. van Koeverden was interested in moving that. It is moved.

The debate is now on amendment G-3.

Are there any interventions? Does anyone wish to speak to G-3?

Go ahead, Ms. Goodridge.

The Chair Liberal Sean Casey

Bill C-252 amends the Food and Drugs Act to prohibit food and beverage marketing to persons under 13 years of age. Amendment CPC-1 seeks to promote a healthy lifestyle in children through sports and athletic programs, which is not contemplated in the bill. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment introduces a new concept to the bill that goes beyond the scope of the bill. That's why I ruled the amendment inadmissible.

The Chair Liberal Sean Casey

Just before we get there, Ms. Goodridge, now that the amendment has been moved, I have to rule on its admissibility. That may dispense with the need for a response to your question.

Bill C-252 amends the Food and Drugs Act to prohibit food and beverage marketing to persons under 13 years of age. CPC-1 seeks to promote a healthy lifestyle in children through sports and athletic programs, which is not contemplated in the bill. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment introduces a new concept to the bill that goes beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

Given that CPC-1 is inadmissible, it brings us now to CPC-2.

Mr. Jeneroux.

The Chair Liberal Sean Casey

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 60 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 to committee business, in camera.

I'd like to, first of all, indicate to the committee that, in accordance with our routine motion—and as you know first-hand—all remote participants have completed the required connection tests in advance of the meeting.

I will now welcome back Ms. Lattanzio, the sponsor of Bill C-252, and our two officials from Health Canada. Thank you for coming back to be with us.

They are here, of course, in case there are questions for the department about the bill. They are Dr. Supriya Sharma, chief medical adviser and senior medical adviser, health products and food branch; and David Lee, chief regulatory officer, health products and food branch.

(On clause 4)

When we left off on Tuesday, we were discussing amendment G-2, which is an amendment to clause 4, so I would suggest that we pick up where we left off.

I recognize Mrs. Goodridge.

Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC

The legislature's greatest fear is that regulations never be subject to its review.

I've been listening very carefully to witnesses. I understand very well that we want to prevent advertising that would have a negative impact on children's eating habits. I get that. That said, I would have liked some examples, but none were given. I think there should be examples.

You use the word “foods”, but to us, foods are not a component. You use the word “regulatory” twice. The first time I read it, what I understood was that foods that are allowed on the market will not be prohibited, but those exceeding the level defined by the regulations will not be allowed in advertising to children. That was my initial understanding. However, after hearing your explanation, I no longer understand what I thought was simple to understand.

You introduced a list of nutrients that would be part of a regulation. In addition to the list of nutrients that, depending on the regulation, would be acceptable or not, these would have levels that would need to be regulated. In other words, I'm being asked to really go in blind in my role as legislator. I wouldn't want to face the foods that end up there.

For example, in Quebec, there was a milk commercial aimed at kids. I guess the consumer protection agency got no complaints about it. That's how the system works in Quebec: You need to file a complaint. Under Bill C‑252, things would not work that way, which would be a step forward compared to our system in Quebec.

Be that as it may, at one point, we had a milk commercial aimed at children. Are you telling me that a commercial like that would not be allowed?

Give us some concrete examples so we can relate. You're being too theoretical, too abstract right now. Reassure the legislators a little bit.

I, for one, was very satisfied with the original wording. Why isn't the government satisfied with that wording and why are they now introducing this amendment, among others?

I'd like to understand that first. Then you could try to answer my questions, if they were clear.

We're trying to figure this out.

The Chair Liberal Sean Casey

The question is on the amendment: that the witness list be limited to the Association of Canadian Advertisers.

All those in favour of the amendment that the only witness to be called at this Thursday's meeting be the Association of Canadian Advertisers.

(Amendment negatived on division)

Is there any debate on the main motion?

Seeing none, we're ready for the question.

The main motion is that we hear from witnesses this Thursday, for one hour prior to clause by clause, on Bill C-252.

Do I have it right, Ms. Goodridge?

Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Hearing some of the conversations around the table, I respect and appreciate the compromise brought forward by Monsieur Thériault.

I would like to move a motion that the committee hold a one-hour witness meeting for Bill C-252 prior to clause-by-clause, to be held this Thursday, March 30, so as not to delay any further. I think that's a very reasonable compromise. It allows people to bring forward a very limited number of witnesses. This is not about delaying the bill, as was suggested by the opposition and the Liberals.

Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the opportunity to serve on the committee with my colleague Mr. Davies, who took part in the consideration of a similar bill in the past.

On the substance, I agree with Mr. van Koeverden. However, I have a quibble with something. The minister mentioned that the Association of Canadian Advertisers has a code and a guide with which advertisers will be expected to comply as of July 2023. It seems to me that this is a new factor that was not discussed in 2018. If we were to meet with the group to discuss a new factor, it seems to me that this would be it.

Quebec adopted the Consumer Protection Act a long time ago, but it's outdated. We won't be able to achieve the objective if the main stakeholders don't work hand in hand with us legislators. I was thinking that they might have some meaningful amendments to propose to us, and we might welcome them to improve Bill C‑252.

My role is to improve this bill based on the objectives Mr. van Koeverden talked about. If we were to make a compromise in the discussion this morning, I feel that focusing specifically on this group, who seem to have the same objectives as we do, might be an acceptable compromise that wouldn't slow down our work very much.