Evidence of meeting #101 for Health in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was unhealthy.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Corinne Voyer  Director, Coalition québécoise sur la problématique du poids
Lindsay Hugenholtz Sherk  Senior Leader, Sport Matters Group
Erica Wiebe  Olympic Gold Medalist (Wrestling), Sport Matters Group
Ronald Lund  President and Chief Executive Officer, Association of Canadian Advertisers
Tom Warshawski  Chair, Stop Marketing to Kids Coalition, Childhood Obesity Foundation
Clara Couturier  Research Analyst, Public Policy, Coalition québécoise sur la problématique du poids

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON

What about chocolate milk?

4:45 p.m.

Director, Coalition québécoise sur la problématique du poids

Corinne Voyer

It's the same thing. Every product, as long as it's not appealing to kids, is okay. It is possible to have some kind of sponsorship as long as it respects the criteria of the legislation in Quebec.

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON

You can see the trouble we're getting into here, because, on the one hand, we have a respected doctor here who's outlining different foods, saturated fats, sugar levels, and sodium levels, and we can have a pretty good debate on that. Then, in your example, you look at the way.... I'm not criticizing, I'm just saying we're here as a committee, and you're saying it's the way in which it is advertised. You read between the lines, kind of. I would read between the lines.

I think the problem this committee has with this bill, and should have, is that Timbits hockey has been allowed for 20-plus years, which, I would say, if I had a kid in Timbits hockey, Timbits hockey means Timbits, and that's part of the problem.

Then there are scoreboards. Can Gatorade or Coca-Cola advertise on scoreboards at arenas, baseball fields, or soccer pitches?

4:45 p.m.

Director, Coalition québécoise sur la problématique du poids

Corinne Voyer

According to the legislation, in Quebec, advertising directed at children is prohibited for all products; it does not matter whether the products are food or toys.

The Quebec legislation has defined three criteria. First, the product must appeal to children. Do sugary drinks appeal to children? The answer is yes. The second criterion deals with the place in which the advertising as shown. Is it in a place where children come together? So can we assume that an arena where children come together to play team sports is a place intended for children? The answer is yes. The third major criterion is the way in which the message is presented.

the way it is promoted. This is very important in the legislation.

If the advertising is presented in a way—

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON

I'm sorry, but I'm on limited time.

The point I would make is, it's by exemption. Everybody understands that, the better the lobby, the better the case you can make, the better chance you have for the exemption to be overturned.

What I point out is, the City of Ottawa has endorsed this bill. If you're any kid in grade 8, what do you come to Ottawa for? A Beavertail. There's a Beavertail stand right in front of city hall. According to this bill, Beavertails are going to be extinct, as far as I'm concerned. This has far-reaching implications, and it deserves a lot more than just the two or three meetings we're going to have.

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bill Casey

Thank you very much.

Now we go to Mr. Oliver.

I understand you might split your time.

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

John Oliver Liberal Oakville, ON

Thank you very much, Chair. I'll be sharing my time with my colleague Mr. Maloney.

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bill Casey

I'll let you know at two and a half minutes.

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

John Oliver Liberal Oakville, ON

Thank you, that would be perfect.

Thank you very much for your testimony today.

Erica, I have to say, it's always wonderful to meet an Olympian. Thank you so much for sharing your time and your thoughts with us today. It's wonderful.

I sat for a bit on a Heart and Stroke advisory panel, and I heard about a study from Queen's University that I thought was fascinating. The conclusion was that it's better to be active and a little bit overweight than it is to be inactive and the right weight. I draw on that sort of health conclusion when I listen to the conflicted testimony here. No question, I think that anyone on this panel is going to say that continued advertising on television, radio, and in stores of foods that are unhealthy for children is unacceptable, and the bill aims at targeting that.

There seems to be, I hope, an unintended consequence, though, when it hits sports sponsorship. My kids all grew up in sports, and when I see Participaction, Hockey Canada, Softball Canada, and Canada Soccer, all of whom were part of my kids' upbringing, being potentially impacted by this legislation, then I'm really concerned about that

I understood the original bill was eight pages and that huge sections have been stripped out, particularly around deeming, and where it did ban, it didn't say sponsorship couldn't happen. That's all gone now. I'm wondering, in the specific recommendations that you made, it sounded more like the food industry's or the advertising industry's concerns than sports sponsorship's concerns.

I worry that you're causing what is a good bill.... If it no longer really impacts sports sponsorship, why are you here?

4:50 p.m.

Senior Leader, Sport Matters Group

Lindsay Hugenholtz Sherk

Thank you for the opportunity to clarify.

We're here specifically because Mr. Eyolfson—who we generally really appreciate—and, I believe, Mr. Blair, on behalf of the minister, indicated that community sport would be exempted from the bill. However, community sport does not encompass all amateur sport, and we wanted to clarify that it's really important that provincial-level and national-level sport organizations and our Olympic athletes are—

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

John Oliver Liberal Oakville, ON

Okay, so if we worked, then, to see if we could broaden the definition of the exemptions, you would be happy, and otherwise, the bill is doing a really good health service to our children. Is that right?

4:50 p.m.

Senior Leader, Sport Matters Group

Lindsay Hugenholtz Sherk

We are very supportive of the bill.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

James Maloney Liberal Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON

Perfect, and thank you, Mr. Oliver.

Just to pick up on what he said, there are a couple of things I have heard around this table.

The bill is noble in its goals. I'm just not sure that in its present form it accomplishes those goals. I know that's why you are here. That's my view too.

Comparing it to tobacco advertising is a bit unfair in my opinion, because McDonald's and Tim Hortons have healthy eating options. I'm pretty sure tobacco companies didn't have healthy smoking options. It's dramatically different. It's a different time frame.

What we're talking about is the advertising. If we're to achieve the goals the bill sets out to achieve, we can't do it at the expense of youth sports. One of my favourite times of the year is Christmas, and it's not because I believe in Santa Claus; it's because I like watching the world junior hockey championship. They generate millions of dollars in advertising revenues from that event. In fact, I think it's their biggest revenue generator of the year. That money, in large part, is used for amateur and youth sports programs. If that revenue source is decreased or hurt, that's going to hurt kids' ability to participate in sports. You touched on this earlier.

I'm also concerned by any letter that's signed by pretty much every significant person in the amateur sport field in Canada who is opposed to this bill.

Can you give us some idea of the decrease in revenue so far? You said it's already had an impact. How do you see the impact going forward, and what does it mean in terms of numbers for young people's participation in sports? If it's going to cost more for families to play hockey and soccer, this is a bad thing, full stop.

April 23rd, 2018 / 4:50 p.m.

Senior Leader, Sport Matters Group

Lindsay Hugenholtz Sherk

I'll use two examples. First of all, soccer is one of our more high-profile, high-participation sports in Canada. I would argue, as a layperson, that Canada Soccer would be able to solicit sponsorship more easily than Wrestling Canada, because of participation, broadcast, and the professional nature of the sports. Canada Soccer has already indicated that one-third of their existing sponsorship at their national program is in jeopardy.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

James Maloney Liberal Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON

I'm sorry to interrupt, but I'm almost out of time.

Are there advertisers waiting in the wings to fill these voids?

4:50 p.m.

Senior Leader, Sport Matters Group

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bill Casey

Thank you very much.

Now we go to Ms. Gladu for five minutes.

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The first thing I want to pick up on is that I was a bit surprised, Dr. Warshawski, when you said it's really not about exercise and being more active; it's really about not being obese.

I used to be a triathlete. I hang out with a lot of people who are athletic. I may not be as athletic as I used to be, but I would argue that when we were doing that kind of workout, we could eat anything. Don't judge me, but we were consuming McDonald's, Timbits, and all those things, and we were not obese.

Where is the research that says it doesn't matter if you're not active?

4:55 p.m.

Chair, Stop Marketing to Kids Coalition, Childhood Obesity Foundation

Dr. Tom Warshawski

I don't think I ever said it doesn't matter.

If you exercise a great deal, if you're a marathon runner or training for a triathlon, it is possible to outrun your fork. However, on a population basis, that's not the case. A number of studies have looked at this.

For example, if you look at the number of calories you drink in 20 ounces of Coke, an adolescent would have to jog for 50 minutes to wear that off. The balance just isn't there. Is it possible? It's certainly possible, but on a population basis, is it likely? No. It's extremely improbable.

We're looking at what's going to have the biggest influence on a population. When you look at these dietary or lifestyle interventions, like the DIETFITS study I just quoted, the difference there and what caused the weight loss was the change in people's eating habits. Their actual energy expenditure probably increased by 50 kilocalories per day. The calorie intake decreased by around 500 calories per day. That's where the return on investment is.

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON

When it comes to the definition of unhealthy food, I've heard a number of people comment that it's not clear. Is it clear to everyone here what is unhealthy and what is not?

I'll start at this end.

4:55 p.m.

Director, Coalition québécoise sur la problématique du poids

Corinne Voyer

In the opinion of the coalition, the definition of junk food ideally would correspond to the current labelling strategy on the front of the packaging. Scientific studies on sugar, salt, and saturated fats are clear as to the effects of those products on the health.

For us, a definition matching those factors would be ideal.

4:55 p.m.

Senior Leader, Sport Matters Group

Lindsay Hugenholtz Sherk

Our context is the wording in the bill and the ability for us to continue the partnerships with existing sponsors. As previous members have mentioned, Tim Hortons is a big sponsor of Timbits hockey and soccer. They have what I perceive to be healthy options and they have what I perceive to be unhealthy options. The bill currently does not clarify for us which of our private sector sponsors would no longer be able to provide investments.

4:55 p.m.

President and Chief Executive Officer, Association of Canadian Advertisers

Ronald Lund

For us, as we have pointed out in our testimony, there are no unhealthy products by themselves. A comparison with tobacco came up. When used as intended, even one puff of tobacco—maybe even marijuana in the not-too-distant future—will be unhealthy for you. But any food product used as intended is not going to harm you. It also, as I say, comes through the food guide and comes through other places. Everyone talks about healthy or unhealthy diets but not about unhealthy products, because it would start to become a claim that a food product was a healthy product, which would not be acceptable.

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON

You mentioned something about charter challenges. I think you said it at least three times. Can you elaborate on which charter challenges you expect to see?

4:55 p.m.

President and Chief Executive Officer, Association of Canadian Advertisers

Ronald Lund

It would only be on proportionality. Again, we are for helping with the obesity problem in children. That's one thing we're squarely for. Where we have problems is when it starts to take in significant swaths of adults and basically gets us out of food marketing to adults, period. That would be a great overstep. It was a great overstep at 17, as Mr. Warshawski pointed out. It would be easily challenged if in fact adults were taken in by this legislation based not on the legislation itself but on where the Health Canada white paper was going. They specifically put in those time zones, which present a major problem to us. They put in the Internet wording, which is a major, major problem. I mean, Google has gone on the record saying that if the language, as per the Internet language, went through, they would not accept any more food or beverage advertising. They just couldn't live up to whatever that meant.