They actually are advertised.
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.
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.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
4:35 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Association of Canadian Advertisers
Yes.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
4:35 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Association of Canadian Advertisers
Where was that?
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Doug Eyolfson Liberal Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
They've been advertised all over the United States for years. There has been some advertising in Canada as well.
Could a brand of vegetables be banned under this?
4:35 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Association of Canadian Advertisers
I'm sorry, but I'm missing the point you're getting to.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Doug Eyolfson Liberal Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
The point is that you said that all food and beverages advertised during—
4:35 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Association of Canadian Advertisers
Well, then, I will retract that. “Could” be banned.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
4:35 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Association of Canadian Advertisers
I'll take the word out.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Doug Eyolfson Liberal Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
You're claiming all food and beverage advertising could be banned?
4:35 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Association of Canadian Advertisers
Most. Would you prefer “most”?
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Doug Eyolfson Liberal Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
Most. Yes, that's fine. I would. If that's what you're saying, I would accept that.
4:35 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Association of Canadian Advertisers
Okay.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Doug Eyolfson Liberal Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
Thank you.
There was a statement made—not by you—that advertisers could self-police. Do you think that's a reasonable proposition, that advertisers would self-police their content with regard to healthy advertising to children?
4:40 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Association of Canadian Advertisers
We have been.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Doug Eyolfson Liberal Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
All right.
We had some testimony last week and some data out of Australia which showed that in the mid-2000s, when this was done, when they gave voluntary standards, first of all, not every advertiser signed onto the voluntary standards. In fact, with self-policing instead of industry guidelines, this would help, but when this was done, they actually found that after this self-policing regimen, the amount of unhealthy advertising to children actually increased and that it was an abject failure. This was actually in our testimony by a witness last week.
How do you respond to that?
4:40 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Association of Canadian Advertisers
I don't know that particular study. I will only speak to Canada.
Canada, as I pointed out, had a self-regulatory system long before the government was involved, since 2007. As I pointed out in my testimony, we think we can do better and we are consequently in favour of putting further restrictions on marketing of food to children, food that is high in fats and sodium. That's in there.
I would also point out for the benefit of the committee—because we always point to 1978—that as I think Mr. Warshawski and others know, in fact obesity in children has plateaued, according to the last studies put out by the government both in 2011 and in 2014. It doesn't mean there's not an issue. It just means that depending on when you take your start date, it looked really bad, and lately it's less bad.
Perhaps part of that was through self-regulatory programs that were put into place. Nonetheless, we can do better.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Doug Eyolfson Liberal Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
All right, thank you.
Sports Matters, has there been any exploration of other kinds of sponsorships for any companies? Has there been any dialogue with, say, companies that produce sports equipment? Have you explored any of these other avenues, companies making products that could help to sponsor minor or amateur sport? Have you been talking to any of these companies about this?
4:40 p.m.
Senior Leader, Sport Matters Group
Yes. I think if you look at the websites of the various national sports organizations, you'll see there are many different categories of sponsors for amateur sport. What we're specifically talking about today is community and youth sport, which is not a property that's easily commoditized in terms of value. The ones we are talking about are providing significant subsidies to the cost of programming.
Based on what I'm hearing from the experts, the ability to find a sponsor to step in to that position is very limited. If we felt that we had enough sponsorship in amateur sport, I don't think you'd be hearing about the athletes asking for additional funding through the athlete assistance program. I don't think you would be hearing about some of the debates between amateur sports which are losing funding because they didn't have the performance at the Olympics or Paralympics.
We know we are underfunded in amateur sport, and if there are other organizations from a private perspective that would like to step up and support, we are absolutely open to that.
The reality is that there's a significant amount of support that comes from food and beverage companies, so the gap that would be created by the way the bill is currently written would be significant. We would see immediate impacts in terms of access to and subsidies for children's programming.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
Thank you very much. The time is up.
That concludes our seven-minute rounds. We go to five-minute rounds now, and I'll remind everybody that five minutes go by very quickly.
Mr. Lobb, you're up.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
To Dr. Eyolfson's points, I'm pretty sure that the Minister of Health has allowed an exemption for Timbits, and I'm pretty sure Timbits are just flour and sugar. So when Mr. Lund says “could” and “possible”, I think he's fair to say that in some ways.
In addition, at the last meeting I couldn't get a definition of what an unhealthy food was, and I doubt Mr. Eyolfson would like to put himself on the line today and give the committee that definition.
I don't know Mr. Lund. I'm sure he's a fine guy. However, when he says “could”, I think that's perfectly fine that he says that.
Ms. Voyer, obviously you have the experience in Quebec, and my question for you is about Timbits. Is Tim Hortons allowed to do sponsorships in the province of Quebec?
4:40 p.m.
Director, Coalition québécoise sur la problématique du poids
I will answer in French.
In Quebec, discreet mentions of sponsorships are permitted. The Guide to the Application of Sections 248 and 249, Consumer Protection Act, permits sponsorship of that kind.
My team is not able to go into the field to monitor everything that is going on in Quebec. However, we have complained before about some sponsorships that, in our opinion, were not discreet mentions. As an example, mascots or the free distribution of food at sporting events in Quebec are not allowed if they are directed at children. There have been warnings, and violation notices have actually been issued, and the required corrective measures have been taken.
As for Tim Hortons—
4:45 p.m.
Director, Coalition québécoise sur la problématique du poids
If it's sober, which means a small logo. It's “sub”, not “sober”. “Sub” means not appealing to kids. The answer is yes, it's okay if it's not appealing to kids.