Health Committee on April 23rd, 2018

[Dr. Tom Warshawski]

I have a couple of things.

I didn't actually say that the age 13 to 17 was an overstep. I said it was a strategic retreat in the face of the threat of a charter challenge. I think it was a strategic retreat. I'd leave that wording in there, please.

I think the tobacco example or allegory is a good one. Tobacco is not a lethal product for everybody. Of the people who smoke a pack a day of tobacco, 80% will have a shortened lifespan, but 20% will live as long as anybody else. This doesn't mean it's a good product. All these things, everything we do, are about the gradient of risk and amount of dosage.

This brings me to the question you had, Marilyn, about how you define healthy versus unhealthy. There is an emerging evidence base about this. One of the things Health Canada has put forward is 15% of daily value, which Ron Lund is in support of, versus 5%. One thing I want to bring your attention to is that the 15% daily value is based on a 2,000-calorie-per-day diet that an adult would have. Erica would eat double that when she's training. But for a child, that same volume would probably be 20% or 30% of what they eat. So this 15% threshold for children is grossly inadequate. There's an evidence base for that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Thank you very much.

Now we go to Ms. Sidhu.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Chair, I'll be sharing my time with James.

Thank you to all the panellists.

Erica, all Canadians are proud of you.

Dr. Warshawski, you said that elevated BMI increases diabetes and heart disease, and that 10% of families have illiteracy problems and 10% have mental health issues. In your opinion, what necessary steps should Canada take to manage the marketing of unhealthy food and beverages directed towards children?

[Dr. Tom Warshawski]

As the chair of the Stop Marketing to Kids Coalition, we strongly supported the original bill, S-228, to restrict the marketing of unhealthy foods and beverages to children and youth under the age of 17. That's consistent with the World Health Organization's recommendations in the recognition of adolescent vulnerability. I also think it's reasonable for a government to consolidate around protection under the age of 13 for now, spend the next few years looking into how to provide meaningful protection to youth while at the same time not overstepping the ability to market unhealthy food and beverages to adults. It is not that I think that's a good thing to do, but on the other hand you draw the line somewhere; you let people take care of themselves. That's number one.

Number two is I believe in supports. I believe it's an important thing to augment good health. Physical activity is good in itself, irrespective of what it does with weight. I think it's a shame that sporting organizations are forced to make a deal with the devil. That's overstating things, but you don't want to eat or drink that stuff. You don't want kids eating and drinking that stuff. You just need the money to pursue your Olympic dream. I think there have to be other ways to help you in this.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Thank you.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you.

I'll pick up on that, Doctor. I agree with everything you've said so far, except for the last part. This piece of legislation is a noble goal, but in your opinion, if this bill has the effect of preventing, curtailing, and hurting tens or hundreds of thousands of kids from participating in sports, do you still think it's a good bill?

[Dr. Tom Warshawski]

No. I think I said that this coalition—I shouldn't just say “me”—supports the government's stance that it's going to exempt sponsorships, certainly at the community level. This is the first I've heard about international and more of a corporate level. You have to pick the hill to die on, which one I think is really important. I think that core restricting marketing is very important.

I think sports have to continue. That's very important for now. You're accepting the marketing vehicles for unhealthy food and beverages. Okay, we'll go ahead with that. Let's look at its impact. Let's see if we could do something better. That's not optimal, but for now I think it's okay.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Maybe for Sport Matters, the advertising dollars for the world junior championship example that I used, those ads are targeted at people like me. They're not targeted at kids so much. The revenue from those ads goes toward kids' programs. Am I right?

[Lindsay Hugenholtz Sherk]

It goes back. There's a split sharing between the International Ice Hockey Federation and Hockey Canada. Hockey Canada reinvests its revenue into Hockey Canada programs.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

I don't know if this is an appropriate question or not. Is there any way of your getting back to us on what the numbers are, what this means? You talked about 470,000 kids earlier. If this bill were to pass in its present form, is there any predictive ability to say this is what it means to minor hockey in Canada, the number of kids or the number of dollars, without disclosing how much ad revenue the tournament generates?

[Lindsay Hugenholtz Sherk]

We have to keep in mind that the world juniors is just one of many vehicles for Hockey Canada.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

I'm a hockey fan, which is why I keep using that example, that's all.

[Lindsay Hugenholtz Sherk]

Obviously, Hockey Canada was very involved. In fact, Canada Soccer and Hockey Canada were very involved. The information I have is at my disposal now. I'm happy to go back to Hockey Canada and ask them for more details. I think there is some sensitivity in what they can....

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Right, and I don't want to cross that line, obviously.

[Lindsay Hugenholtz Sherk]

These numbers are very confidential. We have to remember the number 470,000, which was provided by Hockey Canada, is based on their provincial, territorial, and regional jurisdictions. That's what they control. That doesn't include but doesn't limit this impact to Timbits hockey, which is not a Hockey Canada program. That is a Tim Hortons program.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Erica, you distinguished between teammates and other people involved in sports. Some sports attract sponsorship more easily than others. I'm assuming this bill would make it even more difficult for those sports that already have a hard time attracting sponsors.

[Erica Wiebe]

That's correct. Hockey Canada is definitely a different beast from Wrestling Canada. Currently, Wrestling Canada is the most successful Olympic summer sport program in Canada. We've won Olympic medals at every games since 1988, I believe, but we currently don't have a single private sponsor. It is very difficult in the landscape right now to gain private sponsors for sports organizations.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

We all watched—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. Maloney, you're over.

Now we go to the last questioner, Ms. Ramsey, for three minutes.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

First of all, I want to address something Mr. Lund said, and this comes from the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada. It's about this industry self-regulation. It says that industry self-regulation is a failure. Research shows that 90% of foods and beverages marketed to kids on TV and online are high in salt, fat, and/or sugar. Examples of foods that meet CAI standards and are healthy choices for kids are Froot Loops, Eggo Waffles, and Lucky Charms.

I think there's a strong argument against the self-policing that has resulted in these foods being marketed to kids. That's from the Heart and Stroke Foundation.

My last question, because it has been discussed quite a bit here, is about this idea of a charter challenge. If the federal government genuinely fears that ambitious marketing restrictions will face a successful court challenge, couldn't it simply refer the legislation to the Supreme Court of Canada for an opinion, rather than pre-emptively settling for an unambitious approach?

I'll open it to comment.

[Ronald Lund]

There are two things here.

To your first question, we have to go on the record and we'd certainly be more than happy to provide you an assessment. The Heart and Stroke report is not entirely valid, let's just say.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

If you could send something to the committee to that effect, that would be appreciated.

[Ronald Lund]

We'd be more than happy to do that.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Thank you.

What about the charter challenge?

[Ronald Lund]

In terms of the charter challenge, we would never tell the government how to go about its business. We just know that, if there's a piece of legislation or if our businesses are significantly harmed in an unreasonable way, such as banning advertising of food directed at adults, then that's a route we would take.

We've also talked with Health Canada many times about it. It's not a route we choose to take. We hope that cooler heads are going to prevail.