Health Committee on April 25th, 2018

[David Lee, Chief Regulatory Officer, Department of Health]

Health Canada's view is that “unhealthy food” is well-crafted in this legislation and it will form a constraint on us so that in defining what an unhealthy food is, that's really a scientific exercise. In looking at over-consumption of sugar, for example, there's a lot of expertise and science behind that, so we would be able to pinpoint what those foods are. As a regulation-making exercise, that's language that really confines us to be able to see if there is a harm to children in the over-consumption of this food. There may be other aspects of food other than the three nutrients in this motion that would qualify, scientifically and demonstrably, to meet that threshold.

The other thing, if I may point out, is that there's language here, “high in”. Again, we want to be very careful about that. When you look at the foods that covers, there may be many more foods that are unhealthy advertised to children than, for example, a threshold that's “lower in”, where you get good dietary patterns for our children. That's another point, just with this particular language, that we would raise to your attention.

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

Yes. I just think it's important for the government to be consistent. Health Canada has done substantial consultation before it came with the front-of-pack labelling, and it determined that the things that were of concern with respect to health were saturated fatty acids, sodium, and sugars. I think it's important to be consistent. If the science changes, I'm sure you'll want to change the front-of-pack labelling as well. You could, at that time, update the regulations.

Thank you.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

I appreciate Ms. Gladu's comments, but this is a bill that's focused on children specifically and what is unhealthy food for children. The adult constraints, I'm sure they apply, but there might be other factors as well. I think of the red food dye concerns. I think about maybe something on overly refined flours or starches that may, over time, be determined to cause greater poor health for children than for adults. Staying with this, the “unhealthy food” term, certainly would encompass the detail that you're trying to provide, but as research comes forward, it allows them to move more quickly to the regs. I'll be voting against this amendment for that reason.

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

I have just another question. There's a group out there now called Hands Off My Plate or something—I don't know how they phrase it. Anyhow, they have different examples of foods that Health Canada would now deem to be unhealthy versus foods that would be exempted under what they've been informed of. The example I saw today was that yogourt would be deemed to be an issue, likely because, potentially, the sugar would pop out. However, toaster strudel would not be deemed unhealthy because it's under the criteria. It's the same for beef teriyaki versus Kraft Dinner.

Are those the things that we're going to have to deal with down the road, or are those incorrect?

[David Lee]

In terms of where we are, it's important to recognize that Health Canada is currently in a regulation-making mode. We're doing a lot of science, a lot of consulting to understand what the set of unhealthy foods would be. We have a high degree of concurrence with the ingredients listed here—high in salt, high in sugar, high in saturated fat—and those will help us identify the foods of concern. Over a certain level, that's what is leading to the obesity and the chronic disease in our children.

To your question of how far down we go, this is where setting the criteria carefully on a scientific basis is part of the regulatory discussion, so that we can attach what the harm is going to be with the food products with clarity, so people know what they are. Those are the questions that need to come up. Dealing with them in a clear way in making the regulations is our aspiration, so that we get at those harms but really target those foods that we think would lead to those negative health effects in children.

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

I'm not trying to drag this out. I'm trying to have my mind eased here on the fact that the members around this table are voting for something that is trying to curb advertising to kids under 13, yet you're going to have these technicalities where a toaster strudel would be okay to advertise to a kid but yogourt would not be allowed.

Is this a possibility, though? Is this a loophole?

[David Lee]

It's early to say that this is a possibility. We haven't framed the regulations. We haven't even done a preliminary proposal yet. It's a legitimate discussion that will be raised in that context.

We want to have the science behind it. We are a science department. We want to make sure that when we attribute a harm that it's really there.

Again, this list that's here is the one we are starting with: sugar, salt, saturated fat. There may be other nutrients of concern or other aspects of food that we will build science around. Those are the ones that we have a lot of information and expertise on. Then it's articulating the regulations so it picks out those foods that really are governed by those considerations, because they do produce the harms.

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

I think you've given a very thoughtful answer. It appears to me that we're putting the cart before the horse here. I think as legislators and people who are looking to craft law to guide Canadians' eating habits or parents on what their children are going to eat, shouldn't we know first what you would propose? With the knowledge of that proposal, we could then come back and say, yes, this food would be or this food wouldn't.

This way we're going blindly into the dark, and all 10 of us at the table here could have egg on our face down the road because we don't even know what foods would be deemed unhealthy or healthy by Health Canada officials.

[David Lee]

We would take a lot of guidance from the phrase “unhealthy food”, and it would drive our science around that. In this language you are giving us a very important set of parameters to work in. It's linking the harm with the food. That's a lot of guidance at the legislative level. At least, that's what we would suggest in the regulation-making exercise we would focus on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Are there any other comments?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we'll go to CPC-2.

Ms. Gladu.

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

This is to provide some criteria for determining whether or not advertising is directed primarily at children. You'll see that it includes some of the things that were recommended: the nature and intended purpose of the food being advertised, the manner in which the advertisement is represented, the time or place at which the advertisement is represented. Then we've added in as well that it does not apply to municipal, provincial, territorial, or national sports events and organizations or to community events for the public such as fairs and exhibitions.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

I had a question for the ministry people on the amendment.

It's the proposed amendment where it says, at proposed subsection 7.1(3), that proposed subsection 7.1(1) does not apply to municipal, provincial, territorial, or national sport events and organizations. I have a question about what the bill actually does in this area. We heard a very clear communication from a whole bunch of sporting groups. They're quite concerned that their sponsorship wouldn't be allowed. Most of their sponsorships are in the form of corporate names and corporate logos.

I was looking at the definition for “food” in the Food and Drugs Act. It says, “any article manufactured, sold or represented for use as food or drink for human beings”. My interpretation of that is that Timbits maybe could not be used as a name for sponsorship, but Tim Horton kids, or Tim's Kids could be used because it's more about the brand. As long as it's not the food, then anyone in the industry can advertise with sporting sponsorships whether it be at local or national levels. They can advertise with corporate logos. They just can't advertise a food. A few products like maybe Coke, where the corporate name and the food is the same, like Red Bull or something like that, might have a problem, but the majority of these are corporate names like McDonald's or Tim Hortons or Pizza Pizza. Is that a correct interpretation?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Just a second. I have to break in here. The bells are ringing. We have 28 minutes left to go. I need unanimous consent to carry on for another 10 minutes.

Do I have unanimous consent?

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

There is not unanimous consent, so we have to break.

Will we suspend and come back? Is everybody prepared for that?

All right, we'll suspend and come back as soon as the vote is over.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

All right, we'll reconvene with Mr. Oliver's question.

Can you ask it again?

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

I'm sure they remember it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Oh, good.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Do you want me to ask it again, sir?

[David Lee]

No, please correct me if I am wrong, but I think I did retain it.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

It was the issue of food versus logos for corporate sponsorship, sports sponsorship.

[David Lee]

Right.

It's important to start with the definition of “advertising”, which in the Food and Drugs Act is very broad. It includes language that is direct or indirect by any means whatever. Again, that starts off at a very broad scope, and in terms of this policy we see that as a good thing.

In terms of what's included as promotional behaviour, especially with sports, there can be a fine line in there. As a department—and our minister has been very clear as well that she really wants to make sure we support physical activity in sports for children. That's a very important health outcome that we want to make sure we support. Really, to remove that interpretive ambiguity, if there is any, the intention is to look at actually making an exclusion for sponsorship, where there is support for community-based sports, where kids are playing, but not so much for a wider policy that would say any time there's sports played, you can advertise any kind of unhealthy food. It's really focusing on that sponsorship aspect.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Could you just explain it? To me, this bill is dealing with unhealthy food, and it's aimed at children. Some of those other provisions I don't think would apply, would they? The “unhealthy food” is coming in through this bill, is it not, or is it part of the general Food and Drugs Act?

[David Lee]

“Unhealthy” would become part of the Food and Drugs Act through this bill, and the way it would work is that it attaches to the prohibition in proposed section 7.1. It says—

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

For me, I'm quite concerned about losing the ability for sponsorship for provincial and national sports teams. We heard pretty compelling testimony, and we saw 30 to 40 national sporting groups that are quite concerned about that. I'm hearing a political will. It's not necessarily in the reg or in the act that community activities will continue to be allowed to receive sponsorship. That's just because the minister decided, but the bill itself doesn't require it and this doesn't require it.