Health Committee on April 25th, 2018

[David Lee]

It's not required in the language. Where we look is that there is a general ability to make exclusions from any prohibition in the act that's in our reg-making powers.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Can the minister make the exclusion?

[David Lee]

She could avail herself of that through the Governor in Council and make that exclusion.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Is there any way, as a committee, without amending this bill, that we can express our desire that the exclusion that she's prepared to apply to community sports also be applied to provincial and national sports teams?

[David Lee]

We have taken note of that. It's important also to note that, as the exemption is made, that's through the gazetting process, so there is a time to consult. There is a weighing out of the exact wording of that anticipated exemption. All of the details would be picked up, and there is a public consultation attached to that as well.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

I'll say it again. For me it's very important that we continue to allow sponsorship of amateur sports at any level, not just at the community level but also at the provincial and national levels.

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

Yes, absolutely, that's why I brought the amendment, because we want to make sure it's specified.

Mr. Eyolfson, when he spoke to this bill in the House, indicated he intended to bring two amendments, one to reduce the age to 13, which we have seen, and the other to make sure that sports events would be excluded under this prohibition. The Minister of Health also stood in the House and answered a question and committed to that as well. For that reason, I think this is a good amendment. I think it will prevent us from preventing kids from participating in sports that are sponsored by foods that may be considered unhealthy.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

I should have come back, then, to address my comments on CPC-2.

Because of what I've heard, that really it's dealing with the ministerial exemption in the act, then I don't know that this applies. Also, I find this amendment is too broad. It's any sports. I think where it's a professional sporting team, which might be being watched by a lot of kids, this act should apply. For me, it was about amateur sports at all levels.

I can't support the amendment. It's just too broad. I think this deals instead with ministerial rights to exclude. That's separate and apart, again, from this bill.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Thank you.

I certainly do support this amendment. I have a question to our friends at Health Canada regarding fairs and exhibitions. For example, at the midway at the Calgary Stampede, you see vendors, food trucks, concessions with mini-donut signs. They sell deep-fried pickles, foot-long hot dogs, and cotton candy, and that's advertised everywhere.

Without this amendment, are we looking at their having to paint all their trucks white, and allowing zero advertising on midways of fairs and exhibitions throughout the country?

[David Lee]

We wouldn't anticipate an extreme of that nature. What we're looking for is really.... We would look at the context. Where is it being held? Is it it a mixed event? We would look at techniques for marketing. If it's really drilling down into kids, that's really what we want to catch—those unhealthy advertisements to kids.

Again, with this language though, it would be permissive of any advertising of unhealthy food for any community event. In defining what that is, we would have concerns about pinpointing that as well. It could be a book fair. There are a lot of things that might fall under that, so we worry a little that this would allow for a lot more advertising of unhealthy foods to that under-13 group that is clearly directed at them, at least with this language.

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

I'm disappointed that we have a broken promise from Mr. Eyolfson, who said he was going to bring those two amendments—and I don't see the second one here—and that the minister, as well, went back on her word.

That said, I'm disappointed that we're proceeding without the NDP present, but I would call a vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. Lobb wanted to comment.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

I have a couple of questions. I think probably everybody around this table feels the same way. In and of itself it's a very straightforward bill when you look at it at first blush. I think everybody here wants to help kids out. I don't think anybody's questioning that, but it seems that when you start peeling this back—and I know I've presented some simplistic examples—it is a kind of Pandora's box. It is also a lobbyist's dream in a lot of ways because the minister and you guys are going to get lobbied to no end to try to have exemption after exemption.

I heard an example of a country—I can't remember who told me this example, but I think it was in Chile—where you're not allowed to advertise the Easter Bunny in a display. It has to be in a white box.

At the end of the day, is what we're looking at for advertising that it's going to have implications on Santa Claus chocolates and Easter Bunny chocolates and how they're advertised to kids? I know it sounds almost farcical to even say that, but I think that's the path we're going down. I know there was a young lady from Quebec here at the last meeting, and I think she referenced the white box. Is that, in your interpretation, the goal of this bill? I don't know.

[David Lee]

Again, the goal of this bill, as stated, is to make sure that we address the problem where we have one in three children who are obese and the chronic diseases related to that. We're addressing it by really curbing promotional activities that induce kids to eat more of these unhealthy foods.

That's the rubric—

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

I would say Easter fits your definition.

[David Lee]

When we come down to making the regulations and exemptions, what we're constantly trying to be faithful to is that objective. We have very clear, rigorous discussions about making sure that we're focusing on the harm. For example, the sponsorship element leads to a positive health outcome. That's where you have a good rationale. You bring it in. You say, “Yes, we want our kids to play sports,” so you make that kind of exemption. That's where the policy starts to fit together and you get policy cohesion.

We are consulting a lot with authorities in Quebec to make sure we get this right. They've had a lot of experience with this, and in our view, they have been able to pinpoint the types of advertising people care about and what is directed at children. We can learn a lot from that. We also have a lot of good expertise available to inform us really what to look at.

At the end of the day, it's also regulation-making that is public. You have to observe the goal of the instrument. Then that goes out for public consultation and we weigh carefully all of the input that we do here, in that exercise. Those discussions will get picked up in that regulation-making.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

I would like to clarify this for the record. I was told that I broke a promise because I promised in my speech that there was going to be an amendment. I have in front of me the text of my speech from openparliament.ca. It says, “Additionally”, the health minister “clarified that sports sponsorships would be exempt to ensure activities promoting healthy lifestyles and choices would continue.”

Just for the record, I did not in my speech say that I was going to move an amendment to that effect.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

There's another question I have. Forgive me for continuing to ask about these things, but when I talk about Pandora's box, I see these. I see, for example, the Fergie Jenkins baseball league. Seeing as how Mr. Masse is here, we can use an example close to his area. Let's say that Amherstburg or Tilbury has a Fergie Jenkins team that's sponsored by some type of chocolate milk maker—Parmalat or whatever—and it's the Parmalat chocolate milk team. That would be legal under this law.

If you had the Fergie Jenkins baseball championship on TSN and Parmalat chocolate milk was the advertiser on TV—obviously with Little League kids who started as little kids playing baseball—that would not be allowed under my interpretation of this. You couldn't have a chocolate milk commercial on a Little League game if it's deemed that it's targeted to kids under 13, yet Parmalat chocolate milk could sponsor the jerseys of all the teams that are playing in the Little League tournament. That's my interpretation of this bill. Am I wrong or right?

[David Lee]

Again, it's a little difficult to deal with hypotheticals, but if you look into what you're saying, this is where it's not perfectly clear-cut. We would look at whether that advertising is directed to children. Again, if it's a fairly adult commercial—

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

I'm sorry to interrupt, but my example would be that obviously the ad is targeted towards children.

[David Lee]

Exactly, so why we would care about that is that it takes an unhealthy food for which this policy says “don't promote to children under 13” and allows that to happen. Again, it's within the policy that we would try to observe that in the regulation-making, but again, not in going over that, so you include ads that are for another audience, such as a higher age group, for example. It's really fine-tuning those criteria.

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

Thank you, Chair. I want to correct the record.

To quote from Dr. Eyolfson's speech:

As I stated previously, should the legislation pass second reading and be referred to the Standing Committee on Health, I will be submitting amendments to it.

The first amendment would change the definition of children from under 17 years of age to under 13 years of age....

There's a bit of chat about that and it continues:

Additionally, the Minister of Health clarified that sports sponsorships would be exempt to ensure activities promoting healthy lifestyles and choices would continue.

This is where I got the idea that there would be two amendments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Okay.

I see no further comments. I'll call for a vote on amendment CPC-2.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We'll go to amendment Liberal-2 now.

Dr. Eyolfson.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Yes, I would like to move the following amendment, which is that Bill S-228, in clause 4, be amended by adding after line 28 on page 3 the following:

7.3 Before the fifth anniversary of the day on which sections 7.1 and 7.2 come into force, those sections are to be referred to the committee of the Senate, of the House of Commons or of both Houses of Parliament that may be designated or established for the purpose of reviewing their effect. The review is, in particular, to focus on whether there is an increase in the advertising of unhealthy food in a manner that is directed primarily at persons who are at least 13 years of age but under 17 years of age.

This basically provides Parliament a window to review the effectiveness of this to make sure that the exemption of advertising to 13- to 17-year-olds, or the exemption of the prohibition, would not be exploited and there would be increased advertising to this group.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

I see no hands raised.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 4 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 5)

On clause 5, we have amendment CPC-3.

Ms. Gladu.