Sure. I think what you've said underscores the need to take a wide view of marketing and not just television advertising. That said, probably 70% to 80% of the marketing aimed at children and youth is through television, but more and more of it is on the digital platform. Monique Potvin Kent has done some research on this. I think she appeared before your committee last week.
Especially in that younger demographic, those under 13, they are streamed to a few company websites for advergaming. These are sophisticated ways to increase the exposure that the child would have to the product. It's not that hard to find those sites, and it's not that hard to actually regulate those sites.
As they get older, teens are much more dispersed in where they go to. That I don't think is insurmountable, but it's an extra order of difficulty in protecting teens. As Ron Lund was saying, there's the issue of having a legally defensible defence for teens and not overstepping in terms of the ability to market unhealthy products to adults, and I don't know whether we want to be doing that either, but in any event, we have to draw a line someplace.
I think it's doable. One of the good things that the Minister of Health announced was a substantive budget over the next five years to monitor where the advertising and the marketing are going, to make sure that these regulations are as effective in the under-13 demographic as they're supposed to be, because Quebec has had some issues that way, but also, then, to look at what's happening to teens.
This amendment to the legislation isn't, as I take it, “don't worry, you can have all you want, at the teens...”. It's that, okay, right now we're making a strategic retreat, and we're going to take a legally defensible position. We still should protect teens, but we have to figure out how to do it in a way that doesn't run into a charter challenge.