Bill C-252

Child Health Protection Act

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

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

Health

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

Mr. Speaker, last week, members of this House voted on my private member's bill, Bill C-252, which aims to prohibit the marketing of unhealthy foods and beverages to children aged 13 and under. While the Bloc and the NDP voted in favour of this initiative to protect the health of children, the Conservatives voted against it, once again demonstrating that the health of Canadians is always their last priority.

Could the Minister of Health please speak to the importance of the child health protection act?

Child Health Protection Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

It being 3:28 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-252, under Private Members' Business.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from October 18 consideration of the motion that Bill C-252, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (prohibition of food and beverage marketing directed at children), be read the third time and passed.

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege for me to rise this evening in this House to bring forward once again my private member's bill, Bill C-252, which aims to prohibit the marketing of certain foods and beverages directly to children.

I would like to begin by sincerely thanking all my colleagues here for offering their opinions and contributing to the important conversation on Bill C-252, which has sparked very interesting conversations. It is abundantly clear from many of the exchanges that the issue of marketing of certain foods and beverages to kids is one that many of us care deeply about and is a practice we want to see stopped. I am grateful for the overwhelmingly positive and supportive comments made by my colleagues about Bill C-252 and remain confident that we will be able to pass this bill over to the Senate in the coming days.

I would like to take a second to acknowledge the importance of the leadership that Quebec, my home province, took on this issue in the 1980s and to acknowledge Senator Greene Raine's efforts in 2016 with a previous and different version of this bill. Simply put, we have had plenty of time to discuss the essence of Bill C-252 and its impacts. I respect all my colleagues for their work and their perspectives and enjoyed the opportunity to hear them speak to this issue at length.

Truthfully, we are past the time for debate and are very much at the time when action is necessary. In the intervening years while we have been waiting to act, things have only gotten worse. If we continue to remain idle on this issue, kids' health and the consequences of marketing foods rich in salt, sugar or saturated fats to kids will not improve.

Inaction will mean that our children will continue to be manipulated by this multi-billion dollar industry. Relying on powerful multinational companies to self-regulate and reduce their targeting of children has only been proven unsuccessful. Our children remain at risk and will continue to be unjustly influenced and led to develop poor eating habits that we scientifically know to be detrimental to their health. Rates of obesity will only continue to rise, and the burden on our health care system will only grow.

We can see plainly that we have more than passed the time for action. We must fulfill our duty as parliamentarians and, for many of us, as parents to protect our children's health. We must heed the calls of the United Nations and the World Health Organization, which have been resolute and unequivocal on the very clear harm that the marketing of certain foods and beverages to children can cause to their overall well-being.

As members may be aware, Norway's government just voted this past June to adopt very similar legislation. Norway is not alone in this endeavour, and a growing number of countries, including the United Kingdom and Spain, are also developing similar legislation after years of seeing the ineffectiveness of industries' self-regulation. The international community is moving in the right direction and taking steps and legislative measures to tackle the issue of marketing to kids. Let us draw a lesson from Norway and other countries that place the importance of children's health before the monetary interests of multi-billion dollar industries. Let us pass Bill C-252, but let us do it now.

I would like to thank the stakeholders and researchers who have advocated for the passage of Bill C-252 and to sincerely thank my colleagues in the House and at the health committee for their comments and questions. Voting in favour of Bill C-252 means supporting concerned parents across Canada who currently have to battle against the influence of a multi-billion dollar industry. It means supporting parents who are trying to teach their children to develop healthy eating habits. It means accepting the best science available on this issue and listening to the growing chorus of researchers and health care professionals who have been telling us for years that this legislation is needed. It means joining the international community in its growing efforts to improve the well-being of children across the world. In short, voting in favour of this bill means prioritizing children's health and the well-being of kids from Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel and across the country from coast to coast to coast.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is great to be able to enter into debate on the important issues that matter to Canadians.

If the House could indulge me for just a moment before I get into the substance of Bill C-252, I want to pass along a big thanks. This Saturday marks four years since I was first elected as the member of Parliament for Battle River—Crowfoot. It is a great honour for me, along with the class of 2019, to be able to take my place in this hallowed chamber to stand up for the good people of, in my case, east central Alberta.

First, I pass along my deep thanks and appreciation to my wife Danielle and my three boys. I did not have three boys at the time and now I do: Matthew, Emerson and Winston. I could not do this without them. I thank the rest of my family as well for their support over the last four years.

Of course, one does not start one's political career on election day. There is work that goes into politics prior to that. I give a massive thanks to those who have helped in various campaigns and to those on my EDA and political association. I thank those who, since I first got involved at the age of 15, have been on this political journey with me. I have the honour of being a part of it.

I, like so many in this place, am so deeply appreciative of the work that office staff do to help make sure that we can accomplish the good work we do in standing up for our constituents in this place and back in our constituencies.

Of course, I thank the people of Battle River—Crowfoot. For the last two elections, I have been honoured to receive a mandate and serve the 110,000 people. They are on about 53,000 square kilometres of beautiful, east central Alberta real estate. It is cowboy country. It truly is an honour.

I will continue to stand for those rural values and for democracy each and every day. I look forward to, after the next election, standing behind who I hope will be the new prime minister who brings home common sense to our country. I thank the people of Battle River—Crowfoot for a great four years. I look forward to continuing to fight for many more years to bring common sense home to Canada.

We are debating a bill and its subject matter is something that I would be very surprised if anyone disagreed with. We want to ensure that there are healthy diets for kids across our country. As a father of three young boys, my wife Danielle and I take great pains to work and budget to ensure they have healthy meals. Especially in light of the cost of living crisis we see in this country, that is becoming an increasingly challenging circumstance.

It has been talked about substantially in this place over the last number of years, and especially with Thanksgiving just over a week ago. We saw how the dramatic increase in prices has put significant pressure on so many families. When it comes to ensuring that there is fairness, we need to empower people to understand exactly what they are eating.

We need to have regulations in place that support food safety and transparency, and that the ingredient list actually includes that. For example, something could claim to be organic. We want to have truth behind the whole process of our food supply chain. I know we dealt with it in this place, the fact that the Liberals wanted to label ground beef as being unhealthy, but not potato chips or candy bars.

I hope we would all agree in this place, though I sometimes wonder with some of the activist actions that have been taken by other parties, that we want to ensure healthy diets for everyone, especially for our young people in those formative, developmental years. We need to ensure their tummies are full when kids go to school in the morning. There are examples of this.

I have heard from many across my constituency and across the country. I would specifically give a big shout-out to Altario school. It is located about 45 minutes from my hometown of Consort. Principal Van Lagen has done an incredible job. The school has a greenhouse where it sells vegetables to the community. There is a farm at the school. The school sell animals and produces high-quality food for the local community. This little town of only several dozen people in the community of Altario is able to feed more than the number of people in the community.

We talk about the need to ensure that there is a healthy diet for all—

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-252, the child health protection act.

For many years, the NDP has been calling for a law to stop junk food advertising aimed at children, and 11 years ago we called for such a ban, but no action was taken by successive Conservative and Liberal governments. I am hopeful that with the support from all parties, we can pass this bill and stop the barrage of junk food ads directed toward kids.

I am also hoping that we go further than that, by putting in place a national school food program that gives every child the nutritious food they need to thrive.

The evidence is clear that banning junk food directed at young children leads to better health outcomes. Quebec has had such a ban in place for over 40 years and the results speak for themselves. Fast food consumption in Quebec has gone down by 13% since the law was put in place. In addition, Quebec has the lowest obesity rates among five- to 17-year-olds and the highest consumption of fruits and vegetables in Canada.

It is a true nutrition success story that should be applied across the country. Not only will a law to stop junk food advertising benefit our kids' health, it also makes financial sense.

This is a preventative step that in the long term will mean fewer visits to the ER for preventable diseases, including type 2 diabetes, heart disease and high blood pressure. At a time when our health care system is strained and faced with an aging population, it is a no-brainer for us to reduce the pressure on the system by passing this bill into law.

It is immoral for the CEOs of big food companies to be profiting off pushing junk food to young children. As much of 90%, in fact, of the food ads children see are for unhealthy food products and these ads are increasingly sophisticated. Companies are making money off selling products to young people that are harmful for their health.

This is wrong and it has to stop. Just as we have done with big tobacco companies in severely restricting advertising of their products, we must do the same with big food companies that are irresponsibly marketing junk food to young children.

While the ban on junk food aimed at children is an important first step, it is not enough. We cannot have a conversation about ensuring that our kids are getting proper nutrition without talking about poverty. Poverty makes it so much more difficult for families to make the healthy food choices they would like to make but are unable to because of the lack of money.

I recall a story. As a young early childhood educator, when we instituted a no-junk-food lunch policy, a mother shared with me that it was cheaper for her to buy a bag of cookies that lasts two weeks than a bag of apples that lasts a week.

We cannot talk about healthy food choices without addressing issues of poverty, especially in this affordability crisis we are living in, with persistently high grocery prices. Far too many people simply cannot afford healthy food to sustain a balanced diet. Eating healthy is expensive and preparing healthy meals can also be very time-consuming.

When one is working two or three jobs to make ends meet, which is not uncommon in this country, particular with the affordability crisis, time becomes a luxury one cannot afford, leading one to choose convenience foods that are quick and cheap but unhealthy.

I see it in my own riding of Winnipeg Centre, which has the highest child poverty rate of any riding in the country.

Too many kids are going to school on an empty stomach. Families are choosing between groceries and rent. Food banks are reporting record usage, and the temporary pandemic benefits that kept families afloat have expired and have not been maintained. Poverty is a form of economic violence. I have likened choosing to keep people poor to one of the worst human rights violations, and poverty is something that is faced by many of my constituents, including children, which robs them of the best possible start in life.

That is wrong, and it is a direct result of deliberate policy choices.

I believe we need to make different choices to eliminate poverty and ensure that every child gets the nutritious food they need. It is a choice, and the lack of political will to eradicate poverty, especially for children, is unacceptable. One of these choices is implementing a national school food program. Providing every child with healthy school meals would be a game-changer that would go a long way towards improving nutrition in this country.

It is long past time for us to put such a program in place. Canada remains the only G7 country without a national school food program or national standards. In 2019, the Liberals promised in their federal budget to work towards implementing a program, but after four years, they have still not delivered.

I call upon the government to keep its promise and finally allocate funding for a national school food program in the upcoming federal budget. It would make a profound difference in the lives of children, including many children in my own riding of Winnipeg Centre, whose learning is harmed because they are not getting the healthy food they need. I am a former educator, and in my classroom I had a toaster, bread and other food, which I bought with my teaching salary as a classroom management program because I knew the kids in my classroom could not learn or stay focused on an empty stomach.

Another choice is introducing a guaranteed livable basic income for all people in Canada. Yesterday, on the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty, I joined Senator Kim Pate in support of her bill, Bill S-233, and my own bill, Bill C-223, the national framework for a guaranteed livable basic income act, at a press conference. In its study of Bill S-233, the Senate Standing Committee on National Finance heard overwhelming support from experts and advocates for the social, economic and health benefits that a guaranteed livable basic income would provide.

Providing a guaranteed livable basic income is an idea whose time has come because we know the pandemic revealed the deep cracks in our social safety net, and those cracks remain. In every corner of this country, the human rights of people living below the poverty line are violated on a daily basis. I have called poverty one of the most violent human rights violations, one that robs people of their dignity and their humanity. In one of the wealthiest countries in the world, no one should be forced to sleep in tents, on the streets or in bus shelters. By providing everyone over the age of 17 who needs it with an unconditional cash transfer, a guaranteed livable basic income would lift millions of people out of poverty.

Poverty is expensive. In fact, poverty costs our country at least $80 billion a year. It costs our health care system, and one of the benefits of GLBI would be improving just that.

To conclude, I want to thank the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel for introducing the bill. I call on all members to support it, and I call on all members to support measures, including a national school food program and a guaranteed livable basic income, which would ensure no child in this country is ever hungry again.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I support Bill C-252. I believe it is a continuation of what the government talks a great deal about, which is a healthy eating strategy overall. We need to recognize that excessive amounts of sodium, sugar and saturated fats lead to things such as obesity and diet-related chronic diseases.

What I like about the legislation before us is that the member focused the attention on advertising to children 13 and under, which I believe would have a profoundly positive outcome. I want to applaud the member for taking this initiative. I believe it will make a difference in terms of healthier eating habits for young people. As they grow older, we have a healthier society.

The House resumed from June 12 consideration of the motion that Bill C-252, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (prohibition of food and beverage marketing directed at children), be read the third time and passed.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I have appreciated listening to the discussion and debate this morning. I want to thank my colleague and friend for bringing forward such important legislation.

A good percentage of us are provided the opportunity to introduce private members' legislation. My colleague has picked a substantive issue that impacts children from coast to coast to coast. I listened to the member speak to the legislation, and she emphasized that this bill is not about what food choices parents make. That is a very important part to emphasize.

I start off by saying that because, when I was listening to the Conservative Party's member talk about the legislation, they said, in essence, that the legislation is not good and they will not be supporting it. I assume that will be the position the Conservative Party might take on this as a whole. It is somewhat discouraging, and I will tell members why. When we think of sugar, salt and saturated fats, and the health consequences of the over-consumption of those products, one needs to realize that there is a substantive cost that goes beyond the health condition of the individual consuming the products.

I was a provincial MLA for just under 20 years. If we look at the greatest single expenditure that a province has, it is health care. Trying to marginalize, in any fashion, the impact that diets have on the health condition of our citizens is a disservice.

I thought it was interesting when the member opposite from the Conservative Party said that all children have to do is get out and play football, or get out of the house more. They said that the government needs to get less involved in issues such as this. The members have missed out on a wonderful opportunity. I would ask the member to review what he said and look at what the legislation would actually do.

This is substantive legislation. As the previous speaker from the New Democratic Party made reference to, we have to consider in the mentality of a child and the impact advertising has on them. The member from the Conservative Party is really out of tune.

In the areas I represent, it is not like someone can run outside to their front yard to play flag football in the traditional north end of Winnipeg. There are fields maybe down the block or around the corner, but there are all sorts of other things that factor into it. Some people have different opportunities than others do.

If we apply the very same principle that the government needs to be less involved to the issue of labelling, would the Conservative Party then reverse its course and its thinking on the importance of labelling to say the government should not be involved in it? I would argue that this is very much about consumer education. It is about the government providing assistance to consumers.

The member said that this is about advertising. For children under the age of 13, we would put in prohibitions to prevent excessive amounts of sugar, salt and saturated fats. We can look at the targeting that takes place in advertising today. It is significantly different than what it was 10 or 15 years ago. I will use Facebook as an example. I can target, through Facebook, genders and ages. I can break it down into communities where I want to advertise. We can take a look at what children are engaged in today on the Internet and social media and how much more they are susceptible to advertising and promotions of unhealthy food.

I agree with the parenting factor. I am not going to tell members across the way what they have to feed their children, but I believe that at the same time, there is an obligation on government to look at ways it can promote and encourage healthy eating habits. Where there is a window for some form of exploitation that could ultimately lead to problems in our collective health, I think there is a responsibility for government. We know there are other governments around the world doing this, and it has already been highlighted that the Province of Quebec has been dealing, at least in part, with what this legislation is talking about for the last number of decades.

I would emphasize that things have changed. We have seen, through that change, a great deal more obesity within our younger population. It is not just because of computer games or being in front of the Nintendo, Atari or whatever else one wants to call it. Yes, it would be wonderful to see more children out in our communities playing and participating in physical activities. There are things we can do to encourage and support that. As a government, we have done that by working with municipalities and working with the provinces. However, here, within Bill C-252, we have something very specific that will in fact make a difference.

Take a look at what our children are viewing and watching and how advertisers can focus in. It is not just putting one ad on a TV network or one ad that goes in a particular book. Today, we can focus in on individual children under the age of 13 in promoting a product that we know is unhealthy.

At the end of the day, it is not about saying to a parent, “No, you can't give your child this.” It is to ensure that a parent has more say, as opposed to child X seeing something on blog Y, because blog Y is about some game and is encouraging and promoting a particular product that is loaded with saturated fats, salt or sugar content.

All sorts of chronic health conditions are a direct result of the obesity taking place in our communities. This legislation would make a positive difference for our young people. I hope that members, in particular of the Conservative Party, understand and appreciate that they can contribute to healthier children by supporting this legislation.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-252, which has the laudable goal of prohibiting food and beverage marketing directed at children of materials that are unhealthy and damaging to their health. This legislation is long overdue.

By way of a background, Canada's New Democrats have been advocating for a ban on unhealthy food and beverage marketing to children for many years. In 2012, over 10 years ago, the NDP member of Parliament for New Westminster—Burnaby introduced legislation to expressly prohibit advertising and promotion for commercial purposes of products, food, drugs, cosmetics or devices directly to children under 13 years of age. One can tell already from that short list that the bill was more ambitious than the one we are discussing today, which deals only with unhealthy food and beverages, but it dealt and engaged with the very same concepts before the House today.

In 2016, as has already been heard in the House, Senator Nancy Greene Raine introduced the child health protection act. It was called Bill S-228, and that legislation would have banned the marketing of unhealthy food and beverages primarily directed at children under 17 years of age. A bit later I will touch on how this bill has reduced that age to 13, and of course, under 17 would have been more ambitious. As I will advocate in my remarks today, it would have been preferable.

Health Canada held an online consultation in 2017 to seek feedback on restricting the marketing of unhealthy food and beverages to children. That was over six years ago. That consultation was open to the public, health organizations, industry and any interested stakeholders.

At the House Standing Committee on Health at that time, the Liberals unfortunately amended Bill S-228 to reduce the age limit from under 17 years to under 13 years old. They also added a five-year legislative review, which is a prudent measure.

According to UNICEF Canada, the proposed age cut-off of 17 was more likely than a younger age threshold to protect the most vulnerable from the harmful impacts of marketing. While there are different interpretations of children's evolving cognitive capacities, research suggests very strongly that not only are teens exposed to more ads than younger children and remember them better, but also that they have more means. Teenagers who are 15 and 16 years of age often have more expendable or disposable income, act in a more unsupervised manner and are more likely to purchase unhealthy foods than children under 13, yet I think, due to pressure from the industry, that threshold was reduced to 13.

Although Bill S-228 did pass third reading in both the House and the Senate, unfortunately that bill died on the Order Paper due to a Conservative filibuster in the Senate prior to the 2019 federal election. That has left us where we are at today.

I would also comment that the Liberal government has made a number of commitments since it was elected in 2015 that remain unfulfilled on this issue. The former Liberal health minister, in her 2019 mandate letter, was directed to “introduce new restrictions on the commercial marketing of food and beverages to children”. That was never followed through with.

The current health minister's 2021 mandate letter instructed him to support “restrictions on the commercial marketing of food and beverages to children.” I suppose it can be said he is supporting that, in the sense that the government side is supporting this legislation, but we must remember there has been no action from the government. This is a private member's bill we are dealing with here, not a government bill.

What is the result of the inaction? It is not benign. Each year, the Canadian food and beverage industry spends over $1.1 billion on marketing to children. This marketing appeals to children through product design, the use of cartoon or other characters, as well as fantasy and adventure themes, humour and other marketing techniques. Clearly these techniques work, with there being children as young as three years old who are brand aware and can recognize or name food and beverage brands.

This marketing to children means that over 50 million food and beverage ads per year are shown on children's top 10 websites alone. Their personal identifying information is collected from websites and apps for the purposes of further targeting online marketing. Children in Canada are observing an estimated 1,500 advertisements annually, just on social media sites alone, and nearly 90% of food and beverages marketed on television and online are high in salt, sugars and saturated fat. That is what we as policy-makers are faced with in the current situation.

Let us look at the facts. Poor nutrition and unhealthy food and beverage are key contributors to poor health in children. Good eating habits and avoidance of unhealthy food are key preventative elements of health policy. There is strong agreement among leading Canadian pediatric and allied health organizations that the impact of food and beverage marketing is real, significant and harmful to children's development.

Marketing to children has changed dramatically in the last 10 to 15 years. Today it is a seamless, sophisticated and often interactive process. The line between ads and children's entertainment has blurred with marketing messages being inserted into places that children play and learn. Marketing of food and beverages to children in Canada is largely self-regulated by the same industries that profit from the practice. Research reveals that these voluntary measures are not working. Numerous studies have found strong associations between increases in advertising of non-nutritious foods and rates of childhood obesity. One study by Yale University found that children exposed to junk food advertising ate 45% more junk food than children not exposed to such advertisements. In Canada, as much as 90% of the food marketed to children and youth on TV and online is unhealthy.

Three-quarters of children are exposed to food marketing while using their favourite social media applications. Again, the majority of those ads is for unhealthy foods that are ultraprocessed and beverages that are high in saturated fats, salt and sugar. This does not just affect children. Canadians are the second-largest buyers of ultraprocessed foods and drinks in the world, second only to the Americans. The result is that nearly one in three Canadian children is overweight or obese. The rise in childhood obesity in recent decades is linked to changes in our eating habits. Overweight children are more likely to develop health problems later in life, including heart disease, type 2 diabetes and high blood pressure.

Children are uniquely vulnerable to marketing manipulation until the point that they achieve two specific information-processing skills. The first is the ability to perceive the difference between commercial and non-commercial content, and the second is the ability to understand the persuasive intent behind advertising. Before the age of five, most children cannot distinguish ads from unbiased programming. Children under eight do not understand the intent of marketing messages, and they believe what they see. By age 10 to 12, children do understand that ads are designed to sell products, but they are not always able to be critical of these ads.

Canada needs to get in step with other countries in the world. Other jurisdictions have since adopted similar legislation, including Norway, the United Kingdom and Ireland. By the way, my Conservative colleague was questioned about Quebec earlier and the impact of their legislation, which has restrictions on advertising to children.

Here are the facts: Quebec's restrictions on advertising to children have been shown to have a positive impact on nutrition by reducing fast food consumption by 13%. That translates to 17 million fewer fast food meals sold in the province and an estimated 13.4 million fewer fast food calories consumed per year. Quebec has the lowest rates of obesity among five- to 17-year-olds in the country, as well as the highest rates of vegetable and fruit consumption in Canada. That is relative to every other province. Now, it is true that childhood obesity rate are rising everywhere, but I think the effect of this marketing is quite clear, which is that it has slowed the rising obesity and unhealthy consumption of food marketing in Quebec, partially at least because of their early and, I think, progressive adoption of legislation before the House now.

I would also point out that Quebec has prohibited all commercial advertising targeting children under the age of 13 since 1980, so it is very clear that it is the time for the rest of the country to get in step with this. I think most of us in here are parents, have siblings who are parents, or maybe intend to be parents at some point. Certainly, we were all once children. It should be non-controversial to say that marketing of unhealthy products to our children in this country should be something that we are vigilant on and that we should act to prohibit. I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation before the House today.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to acknowledge the initiative of the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, who tabled Bill C-252. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Food and Drugs Act to prohibit food and beverage marketing directed at persons under the age of 13.

Young people have a very difficult relationship with images. I am the mother of two young adults, so I talk to teens a lot. I can see that their relationship with images is difficult, because youth are exposed to a lot of images. On apps like Instagram, TikTok and BeReal, our youth are constantly exposed to marketing images or influencers showing them what kind of looks are acceptable in our societies.

That is the main source of anxiety for many youth, because they are comparing themselves to filtered and altered images. They are seeing people use unhealthy weight loss methods. Youth are comparing themselves to something that cannot be real. These apps, which our youth use extensively, also contain marketing aimed at them. There are ads for unhealthy foods that are portrayed as very healthy. Youth are being manipulated through social media, which is at their fingertips all day.

It is time for the House of Commons to take action to regulate the big industry groups that are unfortunately more interested in their profits than in the public health of youth, who are our future. We were all young once. We all know what it feels like to want to be cool. We still want that today. We have all wanted to copy everyone else. That is normal, and that is not what I want to question today. The issue is how big food companies that manufacture junk food use marketing. They know which buttons to press to make young people feel guilty about not having tried the latest sugary cereal. It may taste good, but it is not healthy.

Just because there is a cute little rabbit in a field on the box does not mean that the product is healthy or that it is part of a healthy diet. If we can prohibit that kind of advertising from being directed at youth under the age of 13, we could save an entire generation from marketing. Let me give some figures.

Obesity is a well-documented problem. Unfortunately, it is a problem that is on the rise in Quebec and around the world. According to a 2016 report from the Institut national de santé publique du Québec, the INSPQ, 52% of Quebeckers are overweight, meaning they have a body mass index, or BMI, of 25 or slightly more.

Fully 18% of those people are obese, which corresponds to a BMI of 30 or more. That is a lot. According to the INSPQ’s most optimistic projections, those numbers could rise even more to 54% and 21%, respectively, by 2030. That is very worrisome. The increase in overweight and obesity among children has not stopped. It has been ongoing for the last few decades.

Between 1978 and 2004, the combined prevalence of overweight and obesity among children between the ages of 2 and 17 rose from 15% to 26%. That is almost double. This increase was particularly marked among youth aged 12 to 17, with overweight and obesity again doubling for this age group, from 14% to 29%. It was precisely at this time that there was a significant explosion of processed foods on grocery store shelves.

It was the time of convenience. It was the era of frozen pizzas, Jell-O boxes and tasty fish sticks.

I know many families for whom, in the 1980s and 1990s, frozen, overly processed foods with too much fat and too much salt were a magic solution. Indeed, they were easy meals. I do not blame the families, quite the opposite. I have two daughters and at 5:30 I used to run to go pick up my kids from school. Supper was not ready. Those evenings, my partner was working late at night, homework had to be done, and we hoped the kids were in bed by 8:00 p.m. or 9:00 p.m. The solution was a frozen meal. It was easy for me and it was what we had those evenings.

As I said, we must take action for our young people, as we did with tobacco products. However, I am not burying my head in the sand. I know that this is not a problem that can be entirely resolved, but we certainly can help. We can do better, but we have to start.

Young people spend a lot of time on screens. As parents, we have to control what they see, especially during childhood. It is not easy to control, but we have to plug the holes in the law. I am sure members know where I am going with this, because earlier I was explaining how proud we are that legislation has been passed in Quebec. The jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces must be respected. I would remind members that it is Quebec that has full control over health care within its territory, delivers services and promotes healthy lifestyles. While the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C‑252, I want to point out that that it did not help develop the federal, provincial and territorial framework for action to promote healthy weights and that it does not support a pan-Canadian strategy in this area. Quebec intends to remain solely responsible for developing and implementing programs to promote healthy living within its territory, while obviously continuing to exchange information and expertise with the Government of Canada.

The Bloc Québécois is going to examine whether the proposed strategy fits in with the approach Quebec has decided to take, with laws like its Consumer Protection Act. It will be important to ensure that Bill C-252 does not encroach on jurisdictions. This is a sine qua non because, as I seem to find myself saying quite often these days, respect must be maintained. Jurisdictions must be protected. Of course, it is important to safeguard the health of young people and do what we can to quickly bring down childhood obesity rates and tackle diabetes, which is a silent but ever-present evil.

I would like to stress that health and well-being are critically important to me. I am an athletic person, in winter and summer alike. I have done triathlons, I ski and I have participated in figure skating, even competitively. I still pursue these activities. I still swim, surf and stay active. It is important to encourage our young people to adopt these healthy lifestyles. This goes hand in hand with nutrition.

Parents have full discretion over how they raise their children, but they also need tools to help them. It is very important to be aware of these issues, as we in the Bloc Québécois are.

We will therefore be voting for Bill C‑252, because children have the right to not be treated like merchandise and have the right to a childhood without little tigers, bunnies or any other characters trying to influence them at every corner. These are very appealing characters that are solely used to sell sugar.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today to speak to Bill C-252. I will not be supporting it, for various reasons, and I am going to walk through those reasons now. A lot of people in this place are parents, and I am a parent of three young children. Jameson is six. Clare is turning eight in July, and my son Nickson is 10, and we do talk a lot about nutrition in our family. I think a very important role of a parent is to begin healthy eating habits early in life.

With respect to kids being marketed to and Health Canada wanting to pull back some marketing, it seems like Health Canada always wants to bring in more and more bans. I remember that last year we were fighting Health Canada when it was trying to make amendments to front-of-package labelling to label whole beef and whole pork as unhealthy. It did that labelling for before the whole beef or whole pork was actually cooked. Once it is cooked, it loses a lot of its trans fats; the oil drips off, and then we actually have a healthier meal. That is another example of the banning that the government, seemingly continuously, wants to do, taking more and more control over the lives of Canadians. They are just expected to listen to exactly what the government says, and I think that is a dangerous road to go down.

One thing the government was doing was talking about marketing. It struck me as funny that, as I was driving down a road in Ottawa, I saw a candy store frontage, but it was not actually a candy store; it was a cannabis store. When we talk about taking on some marketing and some advertising, maybe we should start with not allowing certain companies to actually make cannabis look like candy. It would be a really good start in this country to actually tackle some of that marketing.

When we were looking at other aspects of Bill C-252, my colleague from Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies came over and talked about why we were trying to fight against the bill in its previous iteration with Senator Greene Raine. The unintended consequence of the bill is that it would take away opportunities for sponsorship in youth sports. Timbits hockey actually sponsors 300,000 kids to play sports in Canada. When we want to have these opportunities for kids who cannot play, because sometimes sports are becoming expensive, we need sponsorship like this. Why would we take a bill that would bring forward government regulations to, and I disagree with my colleague opposite, tell parents what to feed their kids, what is healthy and what is not?

Do members know how much access we are able to have to information on ingredients in the grocery store? My wife takes our kids grocery shopping all the time, and she actually shows them the ingredients that are in the stuff they want her to buy. They look at the first ingredient, and it is sugar. She says, “Why would we buy this? It is full of sugar and it is not going to make us healthy or give us energy.” That is what parents should do; they should create healthy eating habits. The member who spoke previously, the sponsor of the bill, did say that we have to have a multi-faceted approach to kids when it comes to treating obesity and bringing obesity rates down. That approach does involve physical activity.

We have been talking about all the marketing kids are seeing, but my kids do not see a lot of marketing. They are on an iPad or a cell phone one hour a week; on Saturdays they get to play a game. The rest of the time, we go outside and play. We are very active. This weekend I was at home, and I watched six flag football games because our kids were outside. When they were not playing flag football in the league, they were practising with other kids in the park. That fights obesity. Something we should be more focused on is getting our kids outside and playing, and that is something my wife and I have, as parents, taken to heart.

Also, parents should show a healthy lifestyle to their kids. We should be role models for our kids. We do not need the government to tell us how to feed our kids and what they should and should not be doing. Parents need to be better role models across this country for their children, and I think that is something we really need to focus on. I see it time and time again when intermingling with some other parents, where the first thing their kid does is to grab their iPhone from their pocket and sit with it for an hour. We need to be more involved. That is not government's job; that is our job as parents, and it is our job as to what we should be teaching our children. This is why, when legislation like this is brought forward, I am actually quite disappointed.

This legislation is not new; it has been done in Quebec. For 40 years, this legislation has been in place in Quebec. I asked the member very directly how much the obesity rates have gone down in Quebec with this legislation. Members probably noticed that she would not give a number. She would not answer, because government legislation does not have that much of an affect on what kids are going to eat; parents do, and that is what we should be focusing on.

The member talked about $10 million in the 2023 budget for keeping kids active. When that is spread across the country, it is not a lot of money to keep Canadian youth active. However, legislation such as this has actually been done in Canada and proven not to be as helpful as some members like to say. This seems to me to be the definition of insanity: doing the same things over and over again and expecting different outcomes. I see that a lot with the government.

The government talks about marketing to children and trying to make sure that children are not affected by it, because they might respond negatively. However, we also have to teach our kids that they are going to see things in their lives, but they have to learn and be able to look at it, say that it is not for them and move on. We should actually teach our children to see marketing, look at the package on the label when grocery shopping and make the decision not to eat it and put it in their body. The government does not have to do that for parents and kids.

There are a lot of roles where I know there is not a big difference between the Liberals and the NDP members, who think that government can do nothing wrong. Over here, we think government should be less and less involved in the everyday lives of Canadians; this legislation is a perfect example of that. I do not want the government to look after me or my children from cradle to grave. I want us to be able to make our own decisions.

Kids might make mistakes. We work hard, but we are not perfect. Our kids do get the odd stomach ache from eating too much candy or too many chips, but the kids actually learn a lesson from that as well. They realize that they cannot put all this artificial food in their system, because it actually makes them feel unwell; that is a learning experience.

However, to say that the government can control what kids are going to see and control marketing is an issue. In an earlier part of my speech, I brought forward a very valid point, which is that if we want to talk about marketing to children, we need to talk about the fact that people are trying to market cannabis to children and call it a “candy shop”. We should look at tackling some of those issues, which are actually dangerous to kids, and let the parents tackle issues of healthy dietary habits, healthy habits when it comes to staying active and making sure that we are more involved in our kids' lives, day in and day out.

The government is not going to solve those problems; the government of the day definitely will not solve many problems. However, as an engaged parent and a member of society who actually wants to help out and make sure that kids are making healthier choices, I think we have to have more education system involvement when kids have phys. ed. class. Kids can quite often opt out of phys. ed. class. We have to stay active, and we have to stay motivated to make sure that we are making healthy lifestyle choices; that can be a part of it.

My Liberal colleagues have said that we need a multi-faceted approach, but maybe they can take all the effort that has been put into the bill before us into keeping kids more active. In that way, when they get older and have to make choices by themselves, they are going to stay active. They will have a healthy lifestyle, and they will have a healthier diet. This is how we are trying to train our kids so that they can make their own choices. They can read what is on the label and decide that if the first ingredients are sugar and carbonated water, it is not going to be healthy for them. However, we need to train the next generation to actually make decisions on their own, because the government cannot make every decision for them.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. In fact, the bill contains a provision that would mandate Health Canada to monitor impacts of this bill on the marketing of foods and beverages to teenagers aged between 13 and 18. This would be done specifically in an effort to ensure that food companies and advertisers would not simply, as I mentioned, turn around and ramp up their marketing to teenagers to compensate for these new limits. Therefore, the bill would give this opportunity to verify, once Bill C-252 becomes law, and to see the impacts of this legislation.

[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.

Health

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Minister 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.

[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.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning to all committee members.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to present and discuss my private member's bill, Bill C-252, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act, also known as the child health protection act.

Bill C-252 aims to help the youngest and most impressionable Canadians maintain and improve their health by restricting their exposure to advertisements of food with excessive amounts of sugar, sodium and saturated fats.

I am confident that all members of this committee can agree on the harms that diets with excessive amounts of sugars, sodium and saturated fats can have on the health of Canadians and, more importantly, on that of our children. In fact, research has shown that unhealthy diets with excessive amounts of these nutrients are linked to a higher lifetime risk of high blood pressure, high levels of cholesterol, diabetes, and cardiovascular and other chronic diseases.

Despite the risks associated with these kinds of diets, Canadians remain the second-largest buyers in the world of ultra-processed foods and beverages, second only to the Americans. It is clear that things need to change.

That is why my bill is proposing to prohibit the advertisement to children of food with an excessive amount of sugars, sodium and saturated fats. This is based on the key fact—which we know from extensive research—that developing healthy eating habits early in life is important to help to protect children from suffering health problems in adulthood. We know perfectly well the high rate of publicity and advertisements that children are exposed to every day. From TV to billboards to the Internet, children are bombarded by hundreds of ads on a daily basis.

A 2017 report on the health of Canadians has shown that over 90% of food and beverage product advertisements viewed by children online and on TV have been for products that have a high content of sugars, sodium and saturated fats. Evidence shows that food advertising strongly influences children's food preferences and consumption patterns.

For example, a Yale University experiment demonstrated that 7- to 11-year-old children who watched a cartoon show that included food commercials ate 45% more snack foods while watching the show compared to children who watched the same cartoon show with non-food commercials. It is therefore not surprising to learn that kids aged 9 through 13 get more calories—almost 60%—from ultra-processed foods than any other age group.

Having had young children myself, I know just how difficult it can be to ensure our children develop good eating habits. Although we make sure that they get all the healthy nutrients they need, the reality is that our kids are constantly being exposed to and influenced by ads that are working very hard to entice them to products that we know contribute to a poor diet.

The food industry also has recently recognized and acknowledged the need to better regulate the advertising to children. That is probably why in 2022 some of the largest food and beverage companies in Canada adopted the code for the responsible advertising of food and beverage products to children, which Ad Standards will begin administering later in 2023.

Although the proposed code is a good effort, its voluntary nature is not enough to tackle and solve the issue. Relying on adhesion on a voluntary basis and on self-regulation will allow restaurants, food companies, food retailers and advertisers to abstain from signing on or to withdraw their membership in the code at their convenience. Furthermore, the code explicitly excludes key advertising techniques such as packaging and labels, which constitute tactics and sources of exposure that are known to appeal to or influence children. This exemption, therefore, showcases the important limits of the industry's self-declared criteria.

It is therefore imperative that a solid government policy and a framework are put in place to achieve the results that we must obtain and that our children deserve.

Honourable members, I ask that you seriously consider the positive impacts of this bill in order to ensure a healthier future for our children. I thank you in advance for your efforts in advancing Bill C-252 towards adoption and implementation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 59 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health.

Today we will consider Bill C-252 during the first hour, before proceeding to drafting instructions for the report on children’s health in camera for the second half of the meeting.

Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022.

In accordance with our routine motion, I'm informing the committee that all remote participants have completed the required connection tests in advance of the meeting. Today it was remarkably easy to do, because there are no remote participants.

I will now welcome Ms. Patricia Lattanzio, the member of Parliament from Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel and sponsor of Bill C-252, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (prohibition of food and beverage marketing directed at children).

We are also joined by two officials from Health Canada in case there are questions for the department about the legislation. They are David Lee, chief regulatory officer, health products and food branch, and Dr. Supriya Sharma, chief medical adviser and senior medical adviser, health products and food branch. They are in the room but not at the table. They are certainly available to you if you have questions for them, either after Ms. Lattanzio's presentation or as we go through clause-by-clause.

The plan, colleagues, is to have one round of questions from each party so that we can get through the clause-by-clause and on to committee business.

With that, Ms. Lattanzio, thank you so much for being here. You have up to five minutes for your opening statement.

Welcome to the committee.

You have the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you.

Is there any discussion or any opposition?

(Motion agreed to)

Thank you.

For Bill C-252, which is Ms. Lattanzio's bill that is coming to us next Tuesday, we are required to set a deadline for the submission of amendments because unrepresented parties also have a chance to propose amendments. I would like to suggest this coming Friday in order to have time to have them circulated.

Do we have the consensus of the room to set a deadline for the submission of proposed amendments as this Friday? I need a motion to set the deadline for Friday at noon.

Mrs. Goodridge, thank you.

Is it the will of the committee to adopt the motion?

(Motion agreed to)

Thank you very much. Those are the housekeeping items that I wanted to deal with.

I understand there may be at least one or two other motions. The floor is open.

Mr. Lake.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Ms. McKinney.

Thank you to all of our witnesses.

As I indicated at the outset, this is the final witness panel for the children's health study. It's been a fascinating and varied course that we've taken through the various panels, so I guess it's appropriate that we end with one that was both fascinating and varied.

Thank you all for being with us. Thank you for being so patient in sharing your expertise. We wish you a good day and many thanks.

Colleagues, we're going to move now to committee business in public, unless the will of the committee is to do otherwise. I don't propose to suspend because, although the original plan was just a couple of housekeeping items, there are a couple of other items that are going to be raised.

I will ask you to deal with the housekeeping items first.

One is the study budgets that have been circulated to you. The other is simply a deadline for the submission of amendments on the private member's business that's coming to us next week. Is it the will of the committee to deal with these study budgets as a group or do we need to talk about...? Okay, I see at least some heads nodding.

Could I have a motion to adopt the project budget for the main estimates, which is Thursday's topic; for Bill C-252, which is coming before us next Tuesday; and for Bill S-203, which might be coming to us next Thursday unless something else happens today?

Is it the will of the committee to adopt these budgets as presented? Because we're in public, I think we actually need a mover.

Mr. Davies, do you care to move the motion?

[Dr. Andrew Lynk]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the committee for inviting me to present today.

I am speaking on the traditional, unceded lands of the Mi'kmaq here in Halifax, Nova Scotia. We are all treaty people. My department of pediatrics, the Canadian Paediatric Society and the Pediatric Chairs of Canada are all committed to advancing the truth and reconciliation recommendations as they apply to families, children, youth and health.

I'm going to build my remarks on some of the September 27 presentations that were made to this committee by my colleagues from the Canadian Paediatric Society, Children's Healthcare Canada and the Quebec association of pediatricians.

In addition to my current pediatric leadership roles, I spent 26 years practising as a community pediatrician on beautiful Cape Breton Island in Nova Scotia. I had the privilege to serve thousands of children from across the island—from first nations communities to children with cancer, children with autism and those who were born prematurely and with dozens of other conditions. I also served the one in four children and families living in poverty there.

I'll always remember a family who came to me. They were a young couple who were probably in their early twenties. Both had lived lives of adversity and were down on their luck. They had a new baby girl. They brought the baby into my office. After I had examined the baby and we had talked a bit, I asked them what they wanted for their daughter. They said they wanted a better life for her than they'd had. I said, “Okay.”

I've thought about that ever since, both as an individual practitioner and as a leader. Obviously I have to rely on my political colleagues to make some of the big system changes to make that happen.

It's quite clear that political discussions around health and health care always get mired in and confused over jurisdictional issues between the provinces and the federal government. It will probably always be like that—at least for the next little while.

I thought to myself, if I'm going to present today and if I were a member of Parliament or a senator, what would be the top 10 things I would focus on if I wanted to try to advance the well-being and health of children and youth here in the country? That's what I'm going to give you. It's my top 10 things in pretty quick succession. You've heard some of them before.

First, when it comes to mental health transfers, commit at least 25% of that, representative of the child and youth population, to services for child and youth health. We still have too many families, children and youth who cannot access mental health services in a timely fashion.

The second thing is one you've heard from the Canadian Medical Association. I think there's movement on it, but it's really crucial. The federal government should take the lead on a national health human resources centre. They could collate provincial data on the number, distribution and mix of nurses, physicians, mental health workers and allied health workers like lab techs and respiratory technicians, as well as the ages of those health workers and the number of trainees in various programs. This data would allow for planning to meet the increasing demands of the Canadian population now and in the years to come. We're dropping the ball on this one. We're flying blind. It reminds me of what happened to PPE during the early phases of the pandemic, when the provinces and the feds thought everybody had it under control and we didn't coordinate. This is a major issue.

Number three is that I would support the establishment of a national school meals transfer program, so that all children in schools receive a healthy breakfast and/or lunch without stigma. Currently, about one in five children—this is higher for newcomers and indigenous children—live in relative poverty. This would be a major benefit. Senator Rosemary Moodie and her colleagues have been trying to advance this. We would back this.

Number four is a really important one. In 2016, the federal government and Parliament passed the Canada child benefit. In Nova Scotia, in the year prior to that 2016 date, about one in five children lived in absolute poverty—below the market basket measure. In 2019, which is the last year I have data for, that's gone down to just one in nine. One in nine is still too many, but it has been almost cut in half. It's most likely because of the Canada child benefit. That needs to be indexed to real inflation.

When you look at the UNICEF rankings, right now Canada ranks 26 out of 38 rich OECD countries, with the worst child poverty rates. There's no vaccine for poverty. Doctors can't do this. We need everyone to work on this.

In the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Canada passed in 1991, article 27 states that all children should be entitled to adequate standards of living.

Are we really living up to that if one in nine children are still living below the absolute poverty line?

There's another quick point from the Hospital for Sick Children, which was recently published in The Globe and Mail. They're talking about the complexity of the tax forms for poor families and families entitled to apply for some of these measures. They're saying they're difficult for some to navigate and asking if we can make them simpler.

Number five, I would encourage you to pass Bill C-252, which puts restrictions on the advertising of foods high in sugar, fat and salt to children under the age of 13.

Quebec has the lowest incidence of child obesity and children who are overweight in the country, and they have such regulations in law. We know that one in three children in Canada is obese or overweight. They have a higher risk of going on, as young adults and even as teenagers, to have problems with heart disease, liver disease and diabetes—and these are significant problems.

Number six, establish a child-friendly national pharmacare program. One in six families in this country find it difficult and struggle to pay for their children's prescriptions. Also, fund a national, evidence-based and pediatric-sensitive formulary that all practitioners in Canada can use.

Number seven, prioritize housing, water, health and educational opportunities for all indigenous children and youth. I have seen some of the benefits of this among our first nations communities in Cape Breton. When given the opportunity, these children and youth thrive, blossom and make huge contributions to our society.

Number eight, Canada should continue to take a leadership—

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Got it. Thank you.

Dr. Warshawski, Bill C-252 would restrict food and beverage marketing directed at persons under 13 years of age, and I think you've done an excellent job of explaining why children under that age are particularly vulnerable.

However, I'm wondering about children 14 to 18. They may not have the same vulnerability in terms of their belief systems about what they see on TV, but these are kids who have money. They're the ones who are independently able to go purchase their foods, including junk foods. Do you have any thoughts on restricting food and beverage marketing to children between 14 and 18?

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you very much.

Thanks to all of the witnesses for the really interesting testimony.

Dr. Warshawski, I'd like to start with you.

I think you've made it pretty clear what we could do from a policy perspective in terms of marketing without putting into force what's already in the Gazette in addition to anything that Bill C-252 may add.

Maybe expanding on or moving beyond what we should be doing in restricting marketing and maybe picking up a bit on the literacy from Ms. Ferreri's questions, this question is really about nutritional literacy. How do we get better at it?

As a physician, I don't think I was at all well educated in nutrition and what to say or what to advise. Most of what I've learned has been in the reading that I've taken on. There's health practitioner literacy and also general literacy for parents to guide children. There's such burgeoning literature and media on nutrition, yet some of the kernels of good, basic eating practices can be missed.

I wonder if you could comment on how we could, from a policy point of view, do better in nutritional literacy.

[Dr. Tom Warshawski]

The short answer is no.

Under the age of five, kids cannot distinguish advertising from content. Even under the age of 12, they don't really understand the persuasive nature of the advertising. Advertising is getting more sophisticated.

A recent report came out of the Heart and Stroke Foundation about social media and social media user-generated ads. These are young people basically advertising to other young people, which is even more surreptitious. Yes, children have a very hard time recognizing advertising.

From my perspective, as someone who's worked at this since 2014, many areas of government at the federal level have worked towards getting effective restrictions on the marketing of unhealthy foods and beverages to kids, and they were somewhat blindsided in 2019 when it died in the Senate. I just don't want to see us repeat the same mistake now. I do not want to see us putting all our eggs in one basket with Bill C-252. The regulatory process through the Canada Gazette needs to go forward on a parallel track, and if they can converge on a common destination, that would be great. If not, then we have the regulations in hand.

[Dr. Tom Warshawski]

I think it's important. Polling has indicated that between 75% to 80% of parents want to see restrictions on the marketing of unhealthy foods and beverages to children. The government back in 2015 tried to get this moving. Conservative Senator Nancy Greene Raine introduced a private member's bill to the Senate—Bill S-228—that had very strong support in the House of Commons. It initially had unanimous support in the Senate and wound its way back to the Senate in 2019, but then died on the order paper. It was filibustered by certain senators and died.

That is one of the concerns we have as government waits for Bill C-252 to wind its way through Parliament. We think it could very likely suffer the same fate as Bill S-228 and die in the Senate. We think it's important that this bill be allowed to go through. Hopefully it will pass, but a parallel track would be for government to implement the regulations I mentioned in the Canada Gazette.

[Dr. Tom Warshawski, Chair, Childhood Obesity Foundation]

Thank you and good morning.

One of the most significant risks to the health of Canadians and to the viability of our health care system is the current prevalence of unhealthy weights in children and youth. Over 30% of our children are either overweight or obese, and because of the lifestyle habits ingrained in childhood, the situation worsens with age.

Currently, over 60% of Canadian adults have unhealthy weights, putting them at increased risk for heart disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, stroke and cancer. On average, obese adults die seven years earlier than healthy-weight peers. Obesity is thought to cost Canada's health care system over $7 billion per year.

The root of this epidemic begins with the unhealthy dietary habits learned in childhood and, to a lesser extent, low levels of physical activity. The COVID pandemic worsened the situation. Sales of unhealthy food increased. Children spent more time on screens, which commonly market unhealthy foods and beverages to children, and youth spent less time being physically active. While Canadian data is sparse, American studies indicate that children demonstrated an increased weight gain velocity during the COVID pandemic.

Having overweight core obesity is detrimental to the health of children and youth. It is associated with increased rates of depression and anxiety, secondary to weight stigma; increased rates of hypertension and metabolic syndrome in adolescence; increased rates of chronic disease in adulthood; and increased costs to the health care system. Each teen who remains obese into adulthood triggers an additional cost of $25,000.

Obesity worsens health disparities. It disproportionately affects indigenous communities, as 87% of first nations women will develop type 2 diabetes due to unhealthy weights, versus an incidence of type 2 diabetes of 46% in non-first nations women.

Obesity hits lower-income Canadians harder. Obesity rates are 28% in the lowest-income quintile versus 24% in the highest. It impacts rural communities more than urban, with obesity rates of 31% in rural areas versus 25% in urban.

Canada needs to take steps to both prevent and treat unhealthy weights in children and youth. However, treatments are expensive and hard to access, and are primarily under provincial jurisdiction. The federal government should focus on effective prevention steps, which are under federal jurisdiction.

The Childhood Obesity Foundation supports the call for the federal government to finalize front-of-pack nutrition labelling and for the implementation of a national school nutrition program. However, the most pressing need, and to some extent the obvious low-hanging fruit, is for government to introduce regulations to restrict the marketing of unhealthy foods and beverages to children.

The remainder of my presentation will highlight the rationale for this important step, which is explained in more detail in the brief submitted to HESA by the Stop Marketing to Kids Coalition.

Ninety per cent of the foods and beverages marketed to children promote unhealthy weight gain. In adults, consumption of these products is associated with ill health regardless of weight status. Persuading children to consume food that will ultimately damage their health is unethical. Most children under the age of five years cannot distinguish ads from content. Most under the age of 12 years do not understand the persuasive intent of advertising.

Unfortunately, marketing works. It influences kids' food preferences and food choices. That's why the food and beverage industry spends over $1 billion per year in Canada in marketing to kids. As a result, over 60% of the calories children consume are from ultra-processed, unhealthy foods. Parents are being outgunned by big food and beverage, who are spending massive amounts to produce sophisticated marketing that is flooding the airwaves and the Internet.

Many parents, if not most, are ill-equipped to compete: 10% have mental health issues; 10% live in poverty; 15% have poor literacy skills; 15% are single parents; and 17% are immigrants, a percentage that is growing each year. Recent immigrants are particularly vulnerable as they strive to embrace Canadian culture.

Parents are asking for help. The overwhelming majority want government to help them keep their kids healthy by enacting restrictions on the marketing of unhealthy foods and beverages to their children.

Voluntary codes are not effective. For the past 10 years, industry has set its own standards in self-regulated marketing. In June 2021 the industry revised its voluntary code. Although the nutritional criteria are robust, the rules of application have significant loopholes, rendering substantially less protection than the regulatory regimen currently in place in Quebec. The new rules would not even prevent child-directed marketing for such products as Lucky Charms. The fox should not be trusted to guard the henhouse.

Canada's healthy eating strategy, under its objective to protect vulnerable populations, includes restricting marketing and advertising of beverages high in salt, sugars and saturated fats to children. This commitment was included in the government's 2015 and 2021 election platforms, the 2019 federal budget, and four health minister mandate letters.

Health Canada has draft regulations that are poised for implementation. We strongly recommend that they be introduced in Canada Gazette, part 1, by the fall of 2023, as per Health Canada's forward regulatory plan. Government need not and should not wait for the private member's bill, Bill C-252, to wind its way through Parliament. Implementing a regulatory framework to restrict the marketing of unhealthy foods and beverages will positively impact the health of our children and must not be delayed.

Thank you.

Committees of the House

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Health concerning the extension of time to consider Bill C-252.

Health

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the eighth report is entitled “Bill C-252, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (prohibition of food and beverage marketing directed at children)”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I see no debate. We're ready for the question.

Are we in favour of requesting a 30-day extension for the consideration of Bill C-252 and Bill C-224 before the committee?

All those in favour, raise your right hand, please.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Is it the will of the committee to adjourn the meeting? I see consensus.

The meeting is adjourned.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

There's a motion on the floor to request an extension of time for the consideration of Bill C-252 and Bill C-224, and the motion is in order. The debate is on the motion.

Mr. Davies.

Child Health Protection Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-252 under Private Members' Business.

The question is on the motion.

Before the Clerk announced the results of the vote:

The House resumed from September 27 consideration of the motion that Bill C-252, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (prohibition of food and beverage marketing directed at children), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today in support of my private member's bill, Bill C-252, known as the child health protection act, which aims to help the youngest and most impressionable Canadians maintain and improve their health by restricting the advertisement of certain foods to them. I am confident that hon. members in this chamber can agree on the harms that diets with excessive amounts of sugar, sodium and saturated fats can have on the health of Canadians.

Research has shown time and again that unhealthy diets with excessive consumption of these nutrients of concern are linked to a higher lifetime risk of obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes and other chronic diseases. We also know that developing healthy eating habits early in life is important to help protect children from developing these health problems in adulthood.

Each year, hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on food advertising in Canada by the food and beverage industry. Evidence shows that food advertising strongly influences children's food preferences and consumption patterns. Children in Canada are exposed to thousands of food advertisements every year across their daily settings and, unfortunately, most of these ads are for foods that contain excess sodium, sugar or saturated fats.

Opportunities to advertise to children have expanded with television and digital media. Children today are more digitally connected than ever before. Their screen time has increased and advertising directly to them has become easier. Tackling chronic diseases and maintaining public health is a whole-of-society issue and everyone has a role to play.

Since 2007, some of the largest food and beverage companies in Canada have been self-regulating certain types of food advertising to children. Recognizing that the current self-regulatory initiative did not go far enough, some industry associations have recently introduced a code. The code outlines criteria that the food and beverage industry will use to determine which advertisements are considered primarily directed at children, and it is the same industry that will determine the nutrient criteria in order to assess which foods are subject to the self-regulatory restrictions.

Although the proposed code is a step forward, it clearly demonstrates that the industry acknowledges the health consequences that food advertising can have on children. However, let us be clear. We know that voluntary codes are not enough to tackle and solve the issue. The first challenge of solely relying on industry self-regulation is simply that they are voluntary in nature. This allows restaurants, food companies and advertisers to abstain from signing on or simply to withdraw their adhesion at their convenience.

Also, criteria used for these codes often omit to stipulate important advertising techniques, tactics and sources of exposure that are known to appeal to and/or influence children. There is also a lack of transparency in the enforcement of these codes with no enforceable sanctions for non-compliance and, more importantly, it does not provide an independent monitoring.

It is clear from experience that self-regulatory initiatives do not go far enough to safeguard the health of our children. Canada's experience with industry-led self-regulatory initiatives have been similar to those of the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom and Spain. Research in each of these jurisdictions has clearly shown that self-regulatory marketing codes have limited impacts in curtailing children's exposure to the marketing of food and beverage products. Consequently, the U.K. and Spain are pursuing new mandatory restrictions following the observed limited impact of self-regulatory initiatives. This government agrees and believes industry self-regulation is not enough to protect children from being exposed to the harmful and incessant advertising of certain foods.

The Minister of Health's mandate includes a commitment to protect vulnerable populations, including our children, from a range of harms, such as the stream of commercial messaging and endorsements that trigger the most basic eating instincts, especially for foods containing excess levels of sodium, sugars and saturated fats. Supporting Bill C-252 is well aligned with this commitment and will help address many of the shortcomings of the current landscape of the industry-led self-regulating codes.

Our children, just like the one that is in the gallery with us today, are our priority and concrete action is needed now in order to ensure that they are not subject to and do not succumb to the aggressive advertising of foods that contain excess levels of nutrients of concern and that pose unnecessary risks to their health and the health of future generations.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-252, which focuses on the prohibition of food and beverage marketing directed at children.

This bill is mostly a preamble, and there is some strong language in the preamble about protecting kids from manipulative media and about their vulnerability to marketing and media. We should be concerned about marketing that is targeting kids with things that are beyond their age or could be harmful to them.

What about sexually explicit materials and their impact on kids? Numerous studies show the harmful impact that exposure to pornography and hypersexualized media can have on kids, including mental health issues such as depression, loneliness, low self-esteem, increased likelihood of accepting sexual violence or rape myths and an increased risk of girls being sexually harassed and boys committing sexual harassment. The Canadian Centre for Child Protection highlights that exposure to pornography by children may shape a child’s expectations in relationships, blur boundaries and increase a child’s risk of victimization, increase a child’s health risks through, for example, sexually transmitted infections or sexual exploitation, and increase a child’s risk of problematic sexual behaviour against other children in an effort to experiment.

We know that children’s exposure to sexually explicit content, particularly that which is violent and degrading, causes serious and significant harm to mental and emotional health. We know that much of the pornographic content published and hosted on MindGeek websites is sexist, racist or degrading to particular groups. We also know that some of the content involves actual violence or coercion, or is shared without consent.

We need to be focused on the marketing that targets children, and one of the most pressing areas is companies that publish sexually explicit material. If we want to protect “vulnerable children from the manipulative influence of marketing”, particularly harmful content online, we should be starting with predatory porn companies. Porn companies should not have unlimited access to kids online but they do, and they have no requirement to make sure those accessing their sites are actually over the age of 18.

For example, MindGeek is a Montreal-based company not too far from the riding of the sponsor of this bill. MindGeek employs around 1,600 people. It is based in Montreal and the online platforms it owns include Pornhub, RedTube, YouPorn and Brazzers. According to MindGeek's own data, its websites received approximately 4.5 billion visits each month in 2020, equivalent to the monthly visitors of Facebook. Many of those visitors were kids.

That is why last spring, when Bill C-11 was going through the Canadian heritage committee, I proposed amendments to help protect kids from exposure to sexually explicit content. Specifically, my amendment would have added to the policy objective of the Broadcasting Act that it “seek to protect the health and well-being of children by preventing the broadcasting to children of programs that include sexually explicit content”. It was supported by multiple child advocacy organizations and those fighting online exploitation in briefs submitted to the heritage committee.

Defend Dignity, a great organization, pointed out that these amendments are supported by general comment 25, which was recently adopted by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Canada is a signatory to it. The Convention on the Rights of the Child's general comment notes:

States parties should take all appropriate measures to protect children from risks to their right to life, survival and development. Risks relating to content, contact, conduct and contract encompass, among other things, violent and sexual content, cyberaggression and harassment, gambling, exploitation and abuse, including sexual exploitation and abuse, and the promotion of or incitement to suicide or life-threatening activities, including by criminals or armed groups designated as terrorist or violent extremist.

To be clear, they urge signatories like Canada to “take all appropriate measures to protect children from risks...relating to...violent and sexual content”. That is why Defend Dignity said, “Protecting children from the harms of sexually explicit material and society from the dangerous impact of violent sexually explicit material must be a priority.”

Timea’s Cause, another great organization, and OneChild, with a combined 32 years of experience in combatting the sexual exploitation of children, wrote to the heritage committee and said:

Today, Canadian children's access to sexually explicit content and the broadcasting of sexual violence has gone far beyond the realm of television and radio. This content is broadcasted online through digital advertising to pornography. The Internet has unleashed a tsunami of content that is objectifying, violent, and misogynistic in nature, and those viewing this harmful content are getting younger and younger....

This content greatly informs our cultural norms, values, and ideologies. In the case of children, who are still navigating the world and are in the process of developing their sense of self and esteem and learning how they should treat others and how others should treat them-this kind of material is detrimental to their development. It warps their understanding of sex, consent, boundaries, healthy relationships, and gender roles. Moreover, viewing this kind of online content has frightening links to rape, “sextortion”, deviant and illegal types of pornography such as online child abuse material, domestic violence, patronizing prostitution, and even involvement in sex trafficking.

At the heritage committee, when it came to a vote on my amendment, it had NDP support, but the Liberal Party voted it down. It was puzzling that, for the Liberals, who want to control the posts of regular Canadians and now target food advertisers, porn companies get a free pass when it comes to our kids.

I will say it again: Predatory companies such as MindGeek should not have unlimited access to our kids online. This is not new. Over two and a half years ago, we wrote to the Prime Minister asking him for help to stop this. We got no reply. Then, two years ago, MPs and senators from across party lines wrote the justice minister, and this was followed by a New York Times exposé asking, “Why does Canada allow this company to profit off videos of exploitation and assault?”

We then had an ethics committee study last year, a committee that the sponsor of the bill sat on, with 14 recommendations supported by all parties, and still there was no attempt by the government to provide oversight to a part of the Internet that has caused so much pain and suffering to women, youth and vulnerable individuals.

Now, there is a courageous, independent senator who is taking on predatory porn companies like MindGeek with the goal of keeping kids safe online. She has introduced Bill S-210, the protecting young persons from exposure to pornography act, in the Senate, which would require all that publish sexually explicit material to verify the age of the consumer.

The preamble of Bill S-210 states:

Whereas the consumption of sexually explicit material by young persons is associated with a range of serious harms, including the development of pornography addiction, the reinforcement of gender stereotypes and the development of attitudes favourable to harassment and violence — including sexual harassment and sexual violence — particularly against women;

Whereas Parliament recognizes that the harmful effects of the increasing accessibility of sexually explicit material online for young persons are an important public health and public safety concern;

The preamble then continues:

And whereas any organization making sexually explicit material available on the Internet for commercial purposes has a responsibility to ensure that it is not accessed by young persons;

This bill is at committee at the moment in the Senate, and it is hopefully headed to the House soon. When it gets here, I hope it will have strong support among all the parties.

When it comes to Bill C-252, I support the intentions and the aims of the bill, and I commend the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel for her efforts. As parents, we want our children to be healthy and protect them from marketing that could be harmful.

The striking difference between Bill S-210 and Bill C-252 is that the former has a clear framework put in place to do what it aims to do, and I do not see that in Bill C-252, which is not written in a way that could actually accomplish what it claims to do. We know that Quebec passed similar legislation in 1980 to ban advertising aimed at kids under 13, and it has largely been ineffective in lowering child obesity rates.

I also believe that parents should be able to make informed food choices for their families and have affordable access to nutritious foods, the latter of which has become incredibly difficult due to the inflation crisis caused by the Liberal government.

To be successful on this, we need co-operation across all sectors, and I look forward to working with members of the House and across the economy to ensure that we have parents and corporations working together to encourage healthy living.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, it is truly disappointing to see this. We are ready to work for Canadians. We were ready to stay here until midnight to discuss important issues for Canadians to get the relief the Conservatives have been demanding. They have been saying that Canadians need relief on inflation, yet here is an opportunity to debate that. Here is an opportunity to get that relief to Canadians faster on a bill that they support, but they would rather play parliamentary games than help Canadians. That is a shame.

I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak ti the private member's bill introduced by the hon. member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Bill C-252, known as the child health protection act, which proposes changes to the Food and Drugs Act to better protect our children from the harms of food advertising and, ultimately, the health implications associated with unhealthy eating.

Healthy eating is a key priority for our government. It is for that reason we have worked since 2016 to implement a robust set of initiatives through the healthy eating strategy. The strategy has been the cornerstone of our plan to promote healthy eating for all Canadians, including and very importantly, our young ones. This plan has led to action on a number of fronts, from releasing a new and modernized Canada Food Guide, prohibiting the commercial use of trans fats in food, updating sodium reduction targets and, most recently, publishing new front-of-package labelling regulations to provide simplified and easily visible information to help Canadians make informed and healthy choices. These policies are having, and will have, real and tangible impacts, but promoting healthy eating is a complex and ongoing effort, and we cannot stop here.

Members will know that our government has made clear our commitment to protecting our most vulnerable populations by supporting restrictions on the commercial marketing of food and beverages to children. The sad reality is that the current food environment continues to pose real challenges for families in being able to make nutritious food choices, including the impact on children by food marketing techniques. This is why our government believes in demonstrating strong leadership in this area. Our actions are guided by the recognition that a healthy population is key to reducing vulnerabilities at public health events and protecting our health care system. In addition, a healthy population is central to the long-term growth and prosperity of Canadians today and well into the future.

I am pleased that a number of my colleagues in the House share our government's concern about childhood obesity, diet-related chronic disease and the risks to long-term health, and rightly so. We know that one of the consequences of unhealthy eating is chronic disease, which is on the rise. Diet-related chronic diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular diseases and some cancers, are now a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in Canada, and most concerning is that these diseases are starting to affect children.

Obesity, although a multifactorial condition, is influenced by a range of factors, including environmental and individual factors. Diets with excess intakes of sodium, sugars and saturated fat are a key risk factor linked to obesity and other diet-related diseases. Studies have shown that most children in Canada are consuming excess amounts of some or all three of these nutrients. Given what we know about the number of interconnected factors that influence our diet, our government believes in taking a comprehensive approach to tackling the issue, and food advertising is an area of high priority.

Research has shown us that of all age groups, children are particularly vulnerable to food advertising. Food advertising influences their attitudes, preferences, purchase requests, consumption patterns and overall health. The more children are exposed to food advertising, the more likely they are to request those foods. In Canada, children are exposed to food advertising throughout their day in a variety of settings, including in their homes, schools, restaurants and grocery stores.

Unsurprisingly, television has long been an important source of exposure to food advertising. Despite our change in technology and media-consumption habits, it continues to contribute significantly to children's exposure. In fact, data collected through Health Canada's monitoring estimates that children between the ages of two and 11 are seeing up to 33 food ads per week on television.

The popularity of smart phones, tablets, computers and other devices has also made it easier for advertisers to reach children and amplify their messaging. A study published in 2019 estimated that children in Canada aged seven to 11 saw approximately 30 food ads per week on social media apps alone. The vast majority of these ads were for foods that contain excess sodium, sugars, and saturated fats. In fact, more than 90% of them did.

Advertisers typically employ strategies that strongly appeal to children, such as featuring characters from children's programs and movies, offering incentives like free toys and featuring celebrities, athletes and influencers popular with children.

Not only that, the emergence of sophisticated digital advertising technology over the last decade has enabled industry to reach specific audiences with precision, and children are no exception. Digital advertisers are able to analyze, access and utilize a wealth of data to increase the reach and effectiveness of their advertisements, including users' interests, location, demographics, information, emotional state and much more.

These advances are further exacerbating the need for government to step in and help children make healthier eating decisions by restricting food advertising directed at them. Restricting the advertising of certain foods to children is not a novel idea. Over the years, public health experts and advocacy organizations have continued to tell us that government intervention is required to protect children in Canada.

When looking at our counterparts internationally, many countries have already taken action or are currently moving to restrict food advertising to children to protect this vulnerable segment of the population. We recognize the truly global aspect of this issue. It is paramount that we do more to protect our children from the influence of food advertisers.

Beyond the very obvious health benefits, there is a very strong economic imperative for doing everything we can to promote healthy diets. We anticipate Canada's life expectancy will be reduced by three years due to excess weight and obesity by 2050. The economic burden of obesity is also significant. The OECD reported that obesity accounted for 10.6% of all Canadian health expenditures and is one of the highest rates of all countries analyzed.

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the World Obesity Federation estimated that the economic burden of diet-related chronic diseases, obesity and other modifiable risk factors at $26.7 billion per year, rising to $33.7 billion per year by 2025. Overall, the evidence is crystal clear. Obesity and diet-related chronic diseases lead to decreased life expectancy, increased economic hardship, lower educational and employment outcomes and decreased labour force productivity.

Our government is committed to promoting healthy eating and supporting Canadians in making healthier food choices. If we recognize the need to take action now and prevent disease in the future, generations of Canadians will remain productive members of society and enjoy good health. The bill would help limit the undue influence of advertising that makes healthy eating a challenge for families and their children.

There is one point that I would like to address that a previous member brought up, in terms of the concern for advertisers, the concern for sponsorships. It took me back to a time when the government was considering banning smoking and tobacco advertisers on various events, like jazz festivals and races, and that these events would disappear. This is going back decades, when members of Parliament stood up at the time and said that we needed to keep smoking advertisements on events that are marketed to children, because it is good for these events and they would disappear if those advertisements disappeared.

Those advertisements disappeared in the name of public health, and those activities still remained.

Using children's sports as a means to knock down this legislation is truly shocking. The sponsorship opportunities will continue to be there, as they were when this place debated tobacco advertising years ago.

I truly hope that all members of the House will come together and do what is right for our kids. I see it first-hand. The advertisements my kids see on YouTube and other platforms lead to the choices they want to make and where they want to go and, “Dad, can we go here?” We need to do better. We need to do better for them. We need to do better for all Canadians.

I hope all members of the House support the bill.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and support this bill at second reading, Bill C-252, which would amend the Food and Drugs Act to prohibit marketing foods and beverages that contribute to excess sugar, saturated fats or sodium in children's diets in a manner that is directed primarily at persons who are under 13 years of age.

Poor nutrition and unhealthy food and beverages are key contributors to poor health in children. Good eating habits and avoiding unhealthy food are key preventative elements of health policy, not only for our children but for generations to come. New Democrats have been calling for a ban on junk food advertising targeted at children for many years. We believe that it is wrong to let wealthy corporations manipulate our children's eating habits, particularly to the detriment of their health.

New Democrats want every child in Canada to develop a healthy relationship to nutrition and the foods they consume. We are calling for the establishment of a national school nutrition program to give every student access to healthy, nutritious food and to make healthy eating a daily lesson for our kids.

The data is clear. Numerous studies have found strong associations between increases in advertising of non-nutritious foods and rates of childhood obesity. One study by Yale University found that children exposed to junk food advertising ate 45% more junk food than children not exposed to such advertisements. In Canada, as much as 90% of the food marketed to children and youth on TV and online is unhealthy.

By way of background, there is strong agreement among leading Canadian pediatric and allied health organizations that the impact of food and beverage marketing is real, significant and harmful to children's development. Marketing to children has changed dramatically in the last 10 to 15 years as well. Today, it is a seamless, sophisticated and often interactive process. The line between ads and children's entertainment has blurred with marketing messages being inserted into the places that children play and learn. Three-quarters of children in Canada are exposed to food marketing while using their favourite social media applications.

Canadians are the second-largest buyers of ultraprocessed foods and drinks in the world, second only to, of course, the Americans. To give members an idea of how epidemic this problem is, nearly one in three Canadian children is overweight or obese. The rise in childhood obesity in recent decades is linked to changes in our eating habits. Overweight children are more likely to develop health problems later in life, including heart disease, type 2 diabetes and high blood pressure.

Canada's New Democrats, as I have said, have advocated for a ban on unhealthy food and beverage marketing to children for a long time. In 2012, my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby introduced legislation to expressly prohibit advertising and promotion for commercial purposes of products, food, drugs, cosmetics or devices directed to children under 13 years of age. As members can see, this is a much broader prohibition that would protect our children not only from unhealthy food but from being preyed upon by multinational corporations who would take advantage of their youth.

Quebec has prohibited commercial advertising that targets children under the age of 13 since 1980. Other jurisdictions have since adopted similar legislation, including Norway, United Kingdom, Ireland and Sweden. Quebec's restrictions on advertising to children have been shown to have a positive impact on nutrition by reducing fast food consumption by 13%. This translates to 16.8 million fewer fast food meals sold in that province and an estimated 13.4 million fewer fast food calories consumed per year. Quebec also has the lowest rates of obesity among five- to 17-year-olds as well as the highest rates of vegetable and fruit consumption in Canada.

In 2016, Senator Nancy Greene Raine introduced the child health protection act that was S-228. That legislation would have banned the marketing of unhealthy food and beverages in a manner that is primarily directed at children under 17 years of age, a higher age than this bill would set. At the House Standing Committee on Health, the Liberals amended Bill S-228 to reduce the age limit from under 17 years old to under 13 years old and they added a five-year legislative review.

Although Bill S-228 passed third reading in both the House and the Senate, unfortunately that bill died on the Order Paper when Parliament was dissolved for the 2019 federal election. Again, Bill C-252 is similar to that Senate bill, with the following key differences. Again, the current bill would set the age that would prohibit advertising at under 13 years of age, where the Senate bill was under 17 years of age. There is also a change in definition. The current bill says, “no person shall advertise foods and beverages that contribute to excess sugar, saturated fats or sodium in children’s diets in a manner that is directed primarily at persons who are under 13 years of age.” The Senate bill just said, “no person shall advertise unhealthy food in a manner that is directed primarily at children.”

Finally, of course, this bill before us today has, once again, a five-year review that would focus on whether, after this bill became law, there was an increase in the advertising of foods and beverages that contribute to excess sugar, saturated fats or sodium in children's diets in a manner that is directed primarily at persons who are 13 to 16 years of age.

I want to pause for a moment there and make a comment on that. There is a healthy debate on this bill about what the proper age should be set at. Again, the Senate bill was more ambitious and said not to let advertisers advertise to children under 17. This is under 13, and one of the concerns, of course, is that advertisers, who are extraordinarily sophisticated as we are talking about large multinational multi-billion dollar conglomerates that make a lot of money peddling chocolate, sugary beverages, etc., to children, will instead shift and focus their advertising on 14- to 17-year olds. I think this is a healthy way to compromise, by having a study that would monitor it carefully to see if, in fact, that does happen, because if it does then this House could then adjust our legislation in five years on an empirical basis to cure that mischief.

The previous health minister's mandate letter did direct her to “introduce new restrictions on the commercial marketing of food and beverages to children”. The current health minister's 2021 mandate letter instructed him as well to support “restrictions on the commercial marketing of food and beverages to children.” The Liberal 2021 platform pledged to “Introduce new restrictions on the commercial marketing of food and beverages to children and establish new front-of-package labelling to promote healthy food choices.”

We are happy, then, to see this legislation before the House. Unfortunately, it is done through private members' legislation and not, as stated repeatedly in the mandate letters and in the Liberal platform, by the government itself. No matter; as long as it passes, that is what is important. However, it is curious that the current LIberal government has not kept its word in its mandate letters and in its platform, and introduced legislation itself.

Industry organizations, including the Association of Canadian Advertisers, the Canadian Beverage Association, Food and Consumer Products of Canada and Restaurants Canada, have called legislation like this a “significant overreach”. They claim that legislation like this would lead to serious consequences for the economy. On the other side of the coin, Canadian pediatric, child advocacy and other health experts are strong supporters of this bill.

New Democrats want to stand unambiguously on the side of child health and welfare, not corporate profits. We want children to develop a healthy relationship to nutrition and the foods they consume, rather than being manipulated by sophisticated marketing campaigns, especially when it would affect their health.

Over 120 organizations and children's health advocates across Canada have called on the current government to restrict food and beverage marketing to kids. The Stop Marketing to Kids Coalition is governed by 12 steering committee member organizations. They range from the Heart and Stroke Foundation to the Childhood Obesity Foundation, the Canadian Dental Association, the Canadian Cancer Society, Diabetes Canada and Dieticians of Canada.

The pervasive marketing of unhealthy foods is a contributing factor to the growth of childhood and adolescent disease. Sex and gender differences come into play in the design of and responses to these marketing strategies, contributing to the perpetuation of stereotyped behaviour and generating disparities in food choices and health. This particularly hurts girls.

Studies have demonstrated that this intervention, as is presented in this bill, would result in both overall cost savings and improved long-term health outcomes, with the greatest benefits of all to the most socio-economically disadvantaged.

Let us do this for our children.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to see you back here in the House. I sincerely hope you had a nice summer. It was probably much like mine, with a lot of time spent resolving problems with passport applications. Of course, we always enjoy helping our constituents.

We are considering a bill with noble goals and intentions. Bill C-252 deals with the prohibition of food and beverage marketing directed at little children. I am pleased to speak to the bill because I will probably be at the standing committee on health for the clause-by-clause study. There are a number of items that I will be very interested in looking at; I will come back to that later.

First, we must acknowledge that there is an obesity problem among adults and children. If we believe a report from the public health officer for Quebec dating from 2016, the trend is still clear. Fully 52% of the population is overweight. Approximately 18% of people are obese, and that is also true among children between the ages of two and 17. In children aged two to 17, the prevalence of obesity or excess weight has increased from 15% to 26% over time. The diagnosis is clear. We need to act. I think there is a role for public policy-makers and governments to play. That is essentially what this bill does, without claiming to fix everything.

We know the long-term consequences of childhood obesity. There is no clear cause-and-effect relationship, but we do know that there is an epidemiological link to cardiovascular disease, diabetes, musculoskeletal conditions and certain cancers. Preventing these diseases becomes even more important. Obviously, this is a prevention bill. However, the Liberal government, which includes the member who introduced this bill, refuses to give Quebec and the provinces the health transfers they are calling for in order to be able to provide people with the necessary care.

I would therefore encourage my colleague to pressure her caucus and her government. I know her well because her riding is not far from mine. I know her constituents are like mine. They think health transfers are important. I also know she has a member of the National Assembly in her riding, one of the MNAs who unanimously called for health transfers. It is important to listen, but it is also important to look ahead, and there are a lot of good things in this bill.

Some will see this as proof the government thinks it knows everything. They will see the bill as a socialist conspiracy. That is pretty much what my Conservative colleague was insinuating.

I can actually hear a small child in the House of Commons. That child may one day be protected by this piece of legislation.

Children cannot differentiate between information and persuasion. Their brains are not capable of it. The Standing Committee on Health heard from the president of the Association des pédiatres du Québec about child development. Children begin to distinguish persuasion from content around four or five years of age, but it is not until they reach seven or eight that they can really tell the difference between ads and content. They may not really understand until they are 11 or 12.

Most of the time, these ads are not meant to convince anyone, to provide information or to help consumers make informed decisions. It is persuasion aimed at children who are not in a position to make rational and informed decisions, which is why we need to support them.

I can assure the House that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the bill and this principle. I think it is a good thing. This bill is also consistent with the Quebec government's 2019 action plan to reduce the consumption of sugary drinks and promote water. Water can be drunk, but oil cannot. The Quebec government states in its report that the consumption of sugary drinks and the marketing practices that promote their consumption must be de-normalized. There is, after all, a cause and effect relationship.

Of course, someone in Alberta could always make comparisons and think they are just as thin as a Quebecker, and wonder why Quebeckers have advertizing laws. Such statements do not work. These statistics and comparisons between different jurisdictions are pretty shaky. This is counterfactual thinking, and these arguments are pretty weak. At the very least, it is hard to imagine that this bill will make the situation any worse.

Quebec's policy was obviously designed to prompt a reduction in the consumption of sugary drinks. The Bloc Québécois is here in Parliament to express the consensus of the Quebec National Assembly, the vision of Quebeckers and the vision of the Government of Quebec. It would be consistent with our mission in the Bloc Québécois to support this bill, at least at second reading so that it can be sent to committee.

This bill also reflects the recommendations made by the WHO in 2010. The Government of Quebec was not alone in considering this issue. This WHO report applies to the whole world, not just Quebec. One of the recommendations made by the WHO in its 2010 report reads as follows: “Given that the effectiveness of marketing is a function of exposure and power, the overall policy objective should be to reduce both the exposure of children to, and power of, marketing of foods high in saturated fats, trans-fatty acids...”. In short, we need to take action.

Experts have recognized that there is a link between marketing and consumption. We are not saying that it is a definitive link. We are saying that there is a link and we must act. That is consistent with the Quebec government's position, the Quebec government's strategy, the WHO's position and how the Bloc Québécois has voted in the past. I am thinking in particular of Bill C‑237, which, I believe, was passed unanimously by the House of Commons at first or second reading. We are being consistent with our past voting and support. We will continue in that vein with the bill being studied. There is also Bill C‑228 on food and beverage marketing directed at children; it died on the Order Paper.

It is only fitting that we support this bill. I invite my colleagues, including the Conservatives, to vote in favour of this bill. Let us support it because as parliamentarians we know that second reading is not a final step. If there are concerns to be addressed, corrections to be made and discussions required, I can assure my colleague on the Standing Committee on Health that she will find a colleague ready to work constructively on this bill, which I find quite promising. I know that it is well intentioned. Let us refer it to committee.

We are looking for some assurances in committee. First of all, Quebec did not help develop the federal, provincial and territorial framework for action to promote healthy weights. Quebec does not endorse any pan-Canadian response that encroaches on its jurisdictions, so we will have to ensure that this holds true for this bill. Furthermore, Quebec alone is responsible for developing and implementing programs to promote a healthy lifestyle within its borders. I say that, but, at first glance, it does not appear that the bill currently under consideration encroaches on our jurisdiction.

Plus, a simple reminder that Quebec has full jurisdiction over health matters, which I feel needs to be pointed out every day, if not every hour. Furthermore, we must ensure that the bill will not interfere with Quebec's jurisdiction over civil law. Section 248 of Quebec's Consumer Protection Act already prohibits advertising directed at children.

The bill does not seem to go much further, except that the Quebec legislation does not currently regulate store windows, displays, containers, packaging, labels, and so on. Some procedures will therefore need to be reviewed. Perhaps we will find out why my Conservative colleagues do not like the Quebec legislation.

I have said it many times and I will say it agin. The intention is good. The public health objective is good. The reasoning behind the bill is quite rational and well thought out. Now, once again, as is often the case with issues related to health legislation, there is a fine line between Quebec's jurisdiction and the federal government's jurisdiction. However, it is obviously worth it, because the health of our children is of the utmost importance. It is worth passing this bill at second reading, sitting down and studying it diligently. I invite all my fellow parliamentarians to do just that.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to Bill C-252, legislation that seeks to amend the Food and Drugs Act, and more specifically seeks to impose an advertising ban on unhealthy food and beverage products to youth under the age of 13. This bill is substantively similar to Bill S-228 from the 42nd Parliament, which I similarly opposed.

The objective of the bill is a laudable one. After all, obesity is a real problem in Canada among young people. Recent data indicates that approximately 30% of children and youth between the ages of five and 17 are obese. That is not good. That is a problem, and it is one that we must work toward addressing.

The issue with the bill is not its laudable objective, but rather that it seeks a simplistic solution to a complex problem, that of childhood obesity, for which there are many underlying factors. It is truly a multidimensional challenge.

The idea proposed in the bill is not a new one. Similar advertising bans have been implemented in other jurisdictions, including in the province of Quebec. In the case of Quebec, the law has been on the books for more than 40 years.

Unfortunately, the data from jurisdictions that have such bans in place demonstrate that the intended purpose of reducing childhood obesity has not borne out. In the province of Quebec, it has been on the books for 40 years. What has happened in the last 40 years? Childhood obesity has gone up, not down. If it worked, we would expect to see it go down, but that has not happened.

Looking at other jurisdictions within Canada, we see that these types of bans have not had their intended impact. We can look at a province like Quebec, which has a ban, and provinces like Alberta, which do not. For example, the Canadian community health survey indicates that my province of Alberta has a similar level of childhood obesity as that of the province of Quebec.

Given that this has been tried and tested in other jurisdictions and it has not worked, it is difficult to see how implementing this nationally would suddenly work. I do not believe it will. The evidence is not there, and on that basis alone, this bill merits to be defeated.

Let me stress that this is not just a bill with a laudable objective and with a solution that has not worked, but maybe it would work, so let us give it a try. No. This bill, if passed, would have very serious repercussions to key sectors of the economy, including reducing the GDP, costing jobs and, ironically, adversely impacting youth amateur sport.

With respect to some of the economic concerns of this bill, this bill has the potential to have major ramifications when it comes to food and beverage advertising writ large. That is a result of vague language in the bill. More specifically, the bill would seek to ban advertising directed primarily at persons under the age of 13.

The bill says advertising “that is directed primarily at”. What does “directed primarily at” mean? The bill does not specify. It does not provide any clarity. Instead, it is left to regulators at Health Canada to fill in the blanks. That simply is not good enough.

It is not good enough that we would be voting on a bill that seeks to impose an advertising ban without understanding exactly what it is we are banning. When the previous iteration of the bill, Bill S-228, was studied, key stakeholders, including the Retail Council of Canada and Restaurants Canada, expressed concern that the bill could result in a sweeping ban of all food and beverage advertising directed at adults and children alike.

This concern was informed by indications that Health Canada would be taking a broad view of interpreting what constitutes child-directed marketing. To mitigate against unintended consequences, these and other stakeholders put forward recommendations to tighten up the language and incorporate more precise language into the bill. That precise language recommended by key stakeholders remains absent from this version of the bill, so the very issue that was raised with respect to Bill S-228 remains a problem with respect to Bill C-252.

With respect to amateur sport, the bill before us could prevent, or at the very least diminish, corporate partnership and sponsorship of youth amateur sport. There are sponsorships, such as Timbits hockey, Timbits soccer, and McDonald's Canada, which sponsors more than 50,000 kids to play hockey, that could be shut down as a result of the bill because of the broad definition of “advertisement” under the Food and Drugs Act coupled with the vague language in the bill. Indeed, when Bill S-228 was studied, Hockey Canada and Canada Soccer expressed real concern that millions of sponsorship dollars for their organizations would dry up.

It is a bit ironic that a bill that seeks to reduce childhood obesity would have the effect of taking away programs and opportunities for young people to participate in amateur sport, which is a tried, tested and proven way to stay healthy and avoid obesity, in contrast to the bill before us, which is a tried, tested and failed way to reduce childhood obesity.

In closing, Bill C-252 is just another Liberal government-knows-best bill. It would put power in the hands of regulators instead of putting power in the hands of parents. We on this side of the House, as Conservatives, trust parents not bureaucrats to make the best decisions, including health decisions for their children. For that and the reasons I have outlined, I will be opposing the bill.

The House resumed from May 6 consideration of the motion that Bill C-252, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (prohibition of food and beverage marketing directed at children), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Kelly Masotti]

Yes. Thanks for that question.

We are entirely supportive of the front-of-package labelling, and we thank the government for implementing this and moving it along. We would also echo the comments of the previous witness to encourage the government to implement all factors of the healthy living strategy.

The Canadian Cancer Society is part of the Stop Marketing to Kids Coalition. Both as part of that coalition and on our own, we wholeheartedly support the introduction of a ban on marketing to kids in any form. We're supportive of the new bill that's been introduced, Bill C-252. This bill is proceeding through the House, but on Health Canada's forward regulatory plan, it should not delay launching Canada Gazette, part I, on marketing to kids in the fall of 2023.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-252, which was introduced by the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel.

Basically, this bill seeks to amend the Food and Drugs Act to specifically prohibit the marketing of “foods and beverages that contribute to excess sugar, saturated fats or sodium in children’s diets” to persons who are under 13 years of age. As a result, this bill specifically targets the marketing of sugary drinks, for the most part. The bill also provides for a review of the results of these measures by a House, Senate or joint committee in five years.

This bill seeks to address a rather serious problem. One need only consider the statistics. A 2016 report by the public health officer for Quebec indicated that 52% of the population, both adults and children, were overweight and that 18% were obese. According to the most optimistic projections, we can expect those numbers to increase to 54% and 21%, respectively, by 2030. That is a rather sharp rise.

If we focus on the statistics for children across Canada, we can see some marked differences over the past decades. For example, between 1978-79 and 2004, the combined prevalence of overweight and obesity among children aged two to 17 increased from 15% to 26%. Increases were highest among youth aged 12 to 17 years, with overweight and obesity more than doubling for this age group, from 14% to 29%.

This is an urgent problem that must be addressed, in light of all of the comorbidities associated with being overweight or obese, such as cardiovascular diseases. These diseases are the first to come to mind, especially since they were the leading cause of death in 2012. Another example is diabetes, which can be connected fairly directly to sugary drinks. Other examples would be various musculoskeletal disorders, such as arthritis, and other degenerative diseases that are generally highly debilitating. I also want to point out the higher prevalence of certain cancers that are comorbid with overweight and obesity, such as endometrial, breast, ovary, prostate, liver, gallbladder, kidney and colon cancers. This is a global problem that will become worse if nothing is done.

The bill specifically addresses advertising aimed at children. It is interesting to look at the impact that advertising can have on children in general. We can see that, without realizing it, our little ones are increasingly being seen as prospective consumers. We tend to forget that. Here are some interesting facts.

As we know, children have both direct and indirect economic power. They influence nearly 40% of family purchases. Direct spending by children is also on a steady rise around the world. In Canada, in 2004, children aged four to 12 influenced $20 billion in family purchases. This is indirect influence. In 2002, four million children aged two to 12 were estimated to have spent $1.5 billion of their pocket money. In 2006, the figure was $3 billion. The same thing is happening in the United States, where the amount doubles from one decade to the next.

We also know that there is a business strategy behind advertising aimed at children. The goal is to build customer loyalty at an early age. We know that, from the age of six months, babies have the ability to form mental images of corporate logos and mascots. By the age of three, one in five American children demand specific brands of products. Of the six brand names most recognized by toddlers, four are from the food industry.

In all, 93% of children aged three to five recognize the McDonald's logo. The fact that they recognize it is one thing, but does it work? Here is an interesting fact. When researchers present children aged three to five with fries in McDonald's packaging and the same fries in other packaging, they systematically prefer the fries in the McDonald's packaging. Clearly, it has an impact.

This takes me back 15 years to when I was starting my law studies. One of the first courses I took, and loved, was a consumer rights course taught by Pierre-Claude Lafond, who encouraged me to pursue my training. We were already seeing the impact of legislation on advertising, such as American drug ads, which are very long and state the name of the drug, what it is used for, its many side effects and more. In contrast, in Canada, companies cannot say both the name of the drug and what it is used for. Ads here encourage people to talk to their doctor.

It is the same thing for children's toys. I remember that when I was very young, I would always change the channel to see American ads because they were so much more interesting to me. As children, we saw toys of all kinds, so it obviously had an impact.

The bill does have its limits. I therefore encourage the committee that will study it, and the committee responsible for the five-year review, to look closely at certain issues.

For this to be effective, for us to really combat obesity and overweight among children, we need to look at more than just advertising. This bill must be part of a broader movement. Take Quebec, for example, which in 2019 introduced an action plan to reduce the consumption of sugary drinks and to promote water. Quebec not only has its own legislation to prohibit advertising to kids under 13, it also has its own policy on the subject.

I would remind members that Quebec did not take part in developing any federal framework. If the goal is to create legislation to restrict advertising, it is important that this be done in conjunction with the provinces. The member for Sarnia—Lambton pointed out that kids are less active than they used to be. Everything related to health, in general, falls under provincial jurisdiction. We must therefore ensure co-operation between the federal government, in terms of the Food and Drugs Act, and the provincial jurisdictions. I therefore suggest that this be studied in committee.

As I mentioned to the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, we also need to make sure that we are truly able to eliminate false advertising. That is something that Professor Lafond talked about in the course I took with him.

Quebec has an excellent law, but our consumer protection board, the OPC, which is responsible for monitoring compliance, was unable to keep up with demand. Professor Lafond explained to us that only the most blatant cases were taken off the air because the OPC did not have the necessary resources to deal with all of the requests and complaints. By the way, a complaint has to be filed in order for an ad to be taken off the air.

Since this is a private member's bill and these types of bills generally do not involve any expenditures, perhaps we should consider how the terms of this legislation can be implemented effectively.

It is important to remember that there can always be a sort of grey area between what is considered an ad directed specifically at children and what it not. The industry is quite creative on that score.

In 2019, Quebec produced a report on food advertising directed at children, and it listed several ways that companies get around the law. Think of food in the shape of a toy. To what extent is that an ad directed at children? Think of seasonal packaging and designs based on popular current movies. Are they directed more at children or adults, depending on the film? Think of the use of popular or trademark characters, funny wordplay, and products designed in a smaller size or with a toy included to appeal specifically to children.

What about ads posted in family areas? Are they directed specifically at children? We also have to look at how food is displayed on grocery store shelves. What about the font used in an ad, or references to magic or fantasy? I suggest that all these things be studied by the committee that will be reviewing the bill to make it as effective as possible, or so we hope.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill C-252. This is a well-intentioned bill that is trying to address a serious issue in Canada, obesity in children.

In one of the previous Parliaments, I was actually the health critic when the former version of this bill came forward from the Senate. We know that Senator Nancy Greene Raine had brought that bill forward. In fact, she received a bit of teasing about it. As many of us will know, she was quite a famous skier but did a lot of promotional work for Mars bars, so when she came with Bill S-228, there was some teasing going on.

However, this is truly a very serious issue, because almost a third of children in Canada are obese, and it is just getting worse. Certainly, the pandemic did not make things better. I think we would all agree, even for those of us who are not children anymore, that we probably spent too much time at home snacking and putting on weight.

The bill is trying to address reducing obesity in children by controlling marketing that is intended specifically for children. If we look at places that have put this in place, there are a lot of them. Quebec was mentioned. Chile has had this program in place for a long time. The problem is that it is not working. That is the biggest problem. What happens is that they are measuring success by the number of packages they are able to have altered so that they are not directing it toward children, when, really, the measure we are looking for here is a reduction in the obesity of children. This is important because obesity is not just a serious health issue, but a cause of death.

If we look at obesity, we know that some of the related health problems are high blood pressure or heart disease. This is the number one killer of Canadians, heart disease and stroke. Type 2 diabetes is another very serious impact. Right now, there are 11 million Canadians who have diabetes or prediabetes. It is very well known that, through a mixture of diet and exercise, many Canadians who develop type 2 diabetes could have been prevented from doing that. There are many other health conditions, such as liver disease, sleep apnea and joint problems, not to mention the emotional toll. In school, we can imagine the teasing and bullying that often accompany those who are obese. This can be permanently damaging as well.

I am definitely very supportive of addressing obesity in children. It has actually tripled in the last 30 years in Canada. It is truly at an epidemic stage. The problem is that, in 2012, Quebec put in similar legislation to this and it still had a 30% increase in obesity over this length of time.

I think that if we look at the root causes of obesity and what medical science is saying about it, it is really saying that there are four factors that we need to address, or four factors that are the most important.

One is genetics and, really, we cannot do much about that. We are sort of born into the family that we are born into. I know of families who are all skinny forever and they eat way more than I am able to eat. Certainly I am envious, but I can do nothing about my own genetics, so I think that is not something the government can control.

Metabolism is another one, obviously, the metabolic rate. Generally, men have a higher metabolic rate than women, so that can be a factor. Of course, those with thyroid issues can also have metabolic impacts. Again, there is not much the government can do there.

Then there is lifestyle, such as diet and physical activity. This is a place where the government really can make some impacts. There have been studies around the world and if we look at places that have the best outcomes and the lowest obesity rates in the world, those are places like Denmark, France, Ireland, Latvia and Norway. If we take a look at what they are doing that is working, we see that there is more walking and cycling going on in many of these European countries than we have here. There is an effort in the schools to serve smaller portions of food, food that is not fried and has more vegetables. In France, they have three recesses to run around, as well as the weekly gym classes, so they are incorporating that into schools.

I certainly remember when I was in school. Keep in mind it was a different time back then, so I am more aged than many members here in the House, but in terms of diet, our household was not stellar. There were Frosted Flakes, Lucky Charms, Cocoa Puffs and Alphabits for breakfast. My mother used to let us dip our toast in maple syrup. We ate baloney sandwiches on white bread and Kraft Dinner, Beefaroni and things like that. Sprinkle sandwiches were a thing when I was growing up, so none of that diet would be considered a healthy diet today.

At the time, there were no obese kids anywhere to be found in our area because we were running around all day. We were running around at school playing soccer. After school we were playing hide-and-seek, running to the park and jumping off the monkey bars. It was all about activity. There was a specific effort called Participaction at the time that was designed to get kids moving and to get kids active. I definitely think that is something worth focusing on, in addition to the move toward healthier foods.

Environment is the fourth factor that experts are saying is important. We have talked about the environment at school and the things that can be done there. Access to sports facilities, and getting people involved in sports, and access to nutritious food are important things. Right now, the affordability of life is impacting that. That is something that the government can have an impact on. If we think about it, the increases in the carbon tax have caused home heating prices to go up, gas prices to go up, and food prices, especially fresh produce, to go up beyond what those living on lower and maybe fixed incomes can actually afford. This is something that would translate into people not eating as nutritious a diet, so that is something that the government can impact by improving the affordability of life.

At the same time, because of the squeeze on everybody's pocketbooks, a lot of the money in the child tax benefit that we expect would be used to get kids into sports and help them to afford those things is actually being used to help pay the bills. The sports tax credit that we used to have was a specific thing that motivated people to get their kids involved in sports. Those are ideas that the government can implement that can have a really big impact.

In terms of the unintended negative consequences when the discussion came to committee in the last go-round on this bill, there were a lot of organizations like Tim Hortons and McDonald's and whatnot that sponsored children's sports efforts. There was a desire to have an exemption to make sure they would not be punished but could continue to market their products, which some would consider to be unhealthy. When the bill comes before committee, it would be worth looking at those exemptions.

The other discussion was about enforcement. All of the regimes that have put bills like this in place have had difficulty enforcing them, and it has become that much more difficult now that we are in a digital age. Kids have access to the Internet. It is very difficult to control what country they are viewing content from, so the enforcement part of this is a difficult one as well.

There are those who will point out that parental responsibility is important: that parents making healthy choices and helping their children learn to make healthy choices is what this ought to be about. There are those who will say that everybody needs to have their freedom. For me, if chips are in a dark bag with a skull and crossbones on it, I would probably still eat them, but people should have individual choice. There is something to that, and I think about everything in moderation. That said, I do not think that these measures have been effective, but we need to do everything possible to reduce obesity in our country and help our children.

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

Madam Speaker, I shall proceed. As per the FDA, “food” includes beverages, and “advertisement” is defined in broad terms, including any representation by any means by promoting directly or indirectly the sale of products controlled by legislation.

The notion of advertisement is media neutral, which encompasses the latest technologies and evolving methods.

Clause 4 of Bill C-252 adds a new section to the FDA, entitled “Advertising directed at children”, whereby provisions and regulations will define the marketing and advertising mechanisms that would be prohibited and would be part of the bill.

Clause 7.3 allows, after five years of the adoption of Bill C-252, a review mechanism, possible by a committee of the Senate, of the House of Commons or of both Houses of Parliament, in order to evaluate if there has been an increase in advertising of foods and beverages that contribute to excess sugar, saturated fats or sodium in children's diets in the next group of kids, that is persons who are between 13 and 16 years of age.

Lastly, clause 6 of the bill stipulates that the act would come into force one year after receiving royal assent.

By supporting Bill C-252, we are ensuring that marketing and advertising cannot bypass parents and target children directly.

To conclude, we all have an opportunity to advocate through meaningful changes to our food environment. The government has taken important steps to create conditions to make the healthier choice the easier choice for all Canadians, but still, more work remains to be done.

We are committed to advancing the remaining key healthy eating strategy initiatives to further improve the state of healthy eating in Canada and have a meaningful impact on the long-term health of Canadians. This includes taking actions to support children's healthy eating habits to mitigate risks of obesity and diet-related chronic diseases. A healthy population, including healthy children, is not only key to reducing the likelihood of serious health problems, thus requiring fewer health care services, but would also contribute to a healthy economy as well.

Some parliamentarians may recall that a similar bill, Bill S-228, was initially tabled in the Senate in 2016, spearheading the approach to introducing restrictions on advertising and marketing to children. It had passed in the Senate, was debated and amended in this chamber, and was subsequently returned to the Senate, but never reached the final vote before the dissolution of Parliament in 2019.

In the meantime, industry stakeholders have taken initiatives to tackle the issue of advertising to children, but their attempts at self-regulation have been on a voluntary basis only and lack proper monitoring. As a result, Canadian children continue to be exposed to these ads.

It is worth noting that restricting marketing to children has become mandatory in countries such as Portugal, Mexico and Chile, and Argentina and Spain are in the process of advancing new legislative regulatory initiatives. More importantly, the U.K. tabled legislation imposing restrictions on advertising of HFSS products, those that are high in fat, salt and sugar, in July 2021. It received royal assent just last Thursday, April 28, and will come into effect in less than a year, on January 1, 2023.

Dear colleagues, Canada must follow suit. The issue on hand is non-partisan, and I hope to count on the support of all parliamentarians in this House, as well as all senators, for the adoption of Bill C-252, which will benefit our children and future generations. I would like to thank the researchers, especially Dr. Monique Potvin Kent, la Coalition Poids, the Quebec coalition, the Stop Marketing to Kids Coalition, the allied health agencies, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada and the Childhood Obesity Foundation, who have worked and supported the objectives of Bill C-252 and of its prior version.

I look forward to the final implementation of Bill C-252.

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

moved that Bill C-252, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (prohibition of food and beverage marketing directed at children), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to take part in the discussion on Bill C-252, which aims to support restrictions on commercial marketing and advertising on certain foods and beverages to children.

Today's food environment is diverse and includes access to fast foods and ultraprocessed foods, which makes it difficult for Canadians to make healthy food choices. The issue has less to do with our individual will and more to do with what foods are available and aggressively marketed to us.

The advertising of these types of foods is all around us. As a result, Canadians are exposed to and consume too many foods that contribute to excess sugars, saturated fats and sodium in their diets. It is no wonder that Canadians continue to face challenges as they navigate through the food environment and strive to make healthy eating decisions.

There is no denying that we are facing a chronic disease crisis in Canada, and unhealthy diets are playing a key role. The scope of the crisis is staggering, and unhealthy diets with excess intakes of sugar, saturated fats and sodium are a key modifiable risk factor for obesity and chronic diseases. It has been reported that, for the first time in history, we have children who have spent their whole lives eating diets high in ultraprocessed foods and of low nutritional value. In fact, Canadians are the second-largest buyers of ultraprocessed foods and beverages in the world, second only to the Americans. Furthermore, studies have shown that one in three children in Canada is overweight or obese, and as a result is more likely to develop health problems such as high cholesterol, high blood pressure, joint problems, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and even some forms of cancer later in life.

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. With these alarming rates and statistics, it is undeniable that the issue of our food environment requires our attention as a growing matter of public health concern.

While a number of contributing factors influence our diet, food advertising is one of the more prevalent. Advertising has a considerable impact on children's preferences and consumption patterns. A report presented in 2016 by the World Health Organization's Commission on Ending Childhood Obesity concluded that there is unequivocal evidence that the marketing of food and beverages that contribute to excess sugar, saturated fats and sodium in children's diets has a negative impact on childhood obesity and other diseases. It recommended that any attempt to tackle this serious health issue should include restrictions on the advertising and marketing of certain foods and beverages to children.

Even before the pandemic of COVID-19, it had been reported that over 90% of food and beverage product advertisements viewed by children online, and/or on TV have been for products that are high in sugars, saturated fats and sodium content. Kids aged nine through 13 years of age get more calories, almost 60%, from ultraprocessed foods than any other age group.

The COVID-19 pandemic has further highlighted the urgency of tackling unhealthy eating habits as children who were confined in their homes through the lockdowns were subjected, through various media and settings, to unhealthy diets and food and beverage ads at an alarming rate. Statistics have shown that one-third of Canadians increased their consumption of junk food or sweets just three months into the pandemic as a way to deal with the stressful circumstances.

It is widely acknowledged that children are particularly vulnerable to advertising, and succumb to its persuasive influence over their food preferences, attitudes, purchase requests, consumption patterns and overall health. Children are highly exposed to food advertising through various forms of media, packaging or displays that promote foods that contribute disproportionately to excess consumption of sugar, saturated fats and sodium. The Canadian food and beverage industry spends approximately $1.1 billion per year on marketing to children. It uses product designs, cartoons, identifiable characters, fantasy and adventure themes to market to kids.

The exposure, frequency and power of the ads can successfully reach a child as young as three years of age. Given this evidence, it is clear that the government needs to do more and take immediate action to protect children from unfair and deceptive marketing and advertising practices in order to protect their health. That is why part of the Minister of Health's mandate is to promote healthy eating by advancing the healthy eating strategy.

Evidence has shown that many factors in our food environment influence our ability to make healthy food choices, such as access to and availability of healthy food options, lower prices and the promotion of certain foods. The food we find in our grocery stores, on restaurant menus, on social media and in food advertising greatly impacts our choices. With widespread availability of foods high in sugar, saturated fats and sodium, we need to take action in order to restrict ads from targeting children.

Our government recognized these challenges in 2016 and subsequently launched the healthy eating strategy in order to make the healthier choice the easier choice for Canadians. The strategy aims to improve nutrition information and literacy, facilitate healthier food options, and protect and support marginalized and vulnerable populations.

The Government of Canada has made significant progress to date. In 2016, the government improved the nutrition facts table and list of ingredients, which helped Canadians make more informed food choices; in 2018, it prohibited industrially produced trans fats; in 2019, the revised Canada's food guide was launched, providing Canadians with relevant, consistent and credible dietary guidance; and in 2020, sodium reduction targets were published to encourage sodium reduction in food supply. However, more remains to be done.

The government is committed to advancing the outstanding initiatives of the healthy eating strategy and pursuing the implementation of preventive measures aimed at promoting healthy eating lifestyles. These include finalizing the front of package nutrition labelling to promote healthy food choices, and supporting restrictions on the commercial marketing and advertising of certain foods and beverages to children. Having the right tools to access, understand and use nutrition information will support Canadians in making healthier choices.

However, other factors, particularly the constant stream of commercial messages and endorsements, also influence what we buy. These aggressive marketing techniques are used to promote foods with excess amounts of sugar, saturated fats and sodium. Children are particularly vulnerable to food advertising and, therefore, must be provided the necessary protection for their health and well-being; marketing directed at them must be regulated. Their parents should be provided with the support needed as they help their children develop healthy eating habits and food preferences.

Bill C-252 aims to protect children's health and well-being. Bill C-252 proposes to amend Canada's Food and Drugs Act in order to prohibit any marketing of food and beverages directed at persons under the age of 13. Clause 2 of Bill C-252 adds the definition of “children”, stipulating that it means persons who are under the age of 13.

As per the FDA, “food” includes beverages, and “advertisement” is defined in broad terms, including representation by any means of promoting directly or indirectly the sale of products controlled by legislation. The notion of advertisement is media neutral, which encompasses the latest technologies and evolving marketing methods. Clause 4 of Bill C-252 adds a new paragraph to the FDA, entitled “Advertising directed at children” and—

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-252, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (prohibition of food and beverage marketing directed at children).

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to introduce my bill today, which proposes to amend the Food and Drugs Act by restricting the marketing of food and beverages high in sugar, saturated fats or salt directed at children. Studies have shown that even before COVID-19, 90% of food and beverage ads for such products were viewed by our children on TV and/or online. We can only imagine how much more dire the situation has become over the past two years.

Eating and drinking such foods and beverages is linked to increased health risks including obesity, high blood pressure, heart disease, diabetes and cancer. A healthy population, including healthy children, is not only key to reducing the likelihood of serious health problems but contributes to a healthy economy. This issue of concern has been previously debated in this chamber and is being reintroduced, for the time has come to protect our children, ensure that their health is no longer compromised and support parents across the country as they help their children develop healthy eating habits and food preferences.

I look forward to the support and ultimate adoption of the bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)