Health Committee on March 28th, 2023

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Not at all.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

In that case, there's no use asking you questions about some of the amendments. I could, however, ask them to the experts we have here. I imagine they advised the government.

I'm concerned about the amendment that asks for definitions of “sugars” and “saturated fats”. Can you tell the committee why it's important to define them?

[David Lee, Chief Regulatory Officer, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health]

The reason we're proposing to look at the prohibition language to include the nutrients—sugar, saturated fat and sodium—is to add a lot of clarity to the prohibition. This is so people know very clearly when they're offside the law and not.

We're trying to add precision and make sure we're getting to what we want to block from the advertising.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

What kind of definitions will be in the regulations? I would imagine that it will all be defined in regulations, right?

What distinction would be made there? We can talk about the sugar level, but there are different types of sugars or fats, including trans fats.

What are you looking to clarify in the bill with this amendment?

[David Lee]

This is where, in making the regulations, they'd fill out the levels of those ingredients and which foods to define in the regulation. We'll be consulting and making sure that we refine that. This will also serve the prohibition up above.

It will be in the regulations that you get that form of precision.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

You're going to specify the levels, but you also want to define them. I'm asking about the definition, not the level. The level is quite obvious, but how about the definition?

Take trans fats, for example. What do you seek to prevent by not defining their prohibition?

[David Lee]

The problem with defining them at the level of the act—and this is the same with children—is that once it's at the level of the act, it will affect all the instances of that word down in the regulations.

For this policy, we will refine which foods—which nutrients in those foods—the prohibition will apply to.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Lee and Mr. Thériault.

Finally, we have Mr. Davies for six minutes, please.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses.

Congratulations, Ms. Lattanzio. It's always a special day in the life of any parliamentarian when they can actually introduce legislation. I'm very proud to support this legislation. I think it's overdue and will make a real difference in terms of the health of children over time.

This is for you, Ms. Lattanzio, or maybe for Dr. Sharma—I'm not sure. You mentioned Quebec. I'm wondering if there are any other jurisdictions that have introduced similar bans on the marketing of unhealthy foods to children. If so, is there any evidence of what the impact of that measure has been?

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Davies.

There have been a few European countries, as well as the U.K., Chile and Spain, that have introduced similar legislation. Mexico did in 2014 and Chile in 2016.

It's called the M2K, the marketing to kids legislation. They have gone back and reported success in terms of the positive aspects of limiting marketing to kids.

I can tell you that the U.K.'s legislation focuses on restrictions for television between 5:30 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. and a total ban on paid ads online.

Spain and the U.K. are also developing the M2K legislation after not observing positive impacts from industry self-regulation. Spain's legislation is still being developed.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

You've anticipated where I'm going next, Ms. Lattanzio, which is to a peer-reviewed article from August 2022 on food marketing to children. It concluded “that unhealthy food marketing to children and adolescents is extensive and that current self-regulatory policies are insufficient at reducing the presence of such marketing.” Is that correct?

Dr. Sharma, do you have anything to add to that?

[Dr. Supriya Sharma]

I have an example. You referred to a nutrition initiative that was already there, the Canadian children's food and beverage advertising initiative, which is a self-regulatory measure that's already in place.

When we looked at the ads that were directed to children and teens for foods that were high in salt, sugar and fat, three-quarters of those ads were from industry members that were signatories to that initiative.

When we look at voluntary measures, they are that. They are voluntary. They are limited to the signatories, but as I just noted, even if you are a signatory it may not necessarily influence that behaviour.

In terms of the proposal that we've seen for the self-guide, there are also challenges in terms of the advertising criteria that are defined. They don't have the nutrient criteria for products; that's incomplete as well. The review process is not an independent process, so if something happens on the compliance enforcement side, there's no independent process to deal with that.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Can I just zero in on one thing?

Since 2007, since that industry-launched voluntary code has come into place, what has happened in that time period—it's about 16 years—in terms of the health of children or the obesity rates in Canada? Have they gone up, gone down or stayed the same?

[Dr. Supriya Sharma]

They've gone up. At this point in time, one in three children in Canada is defined as either overweight or obese. For indigenous children, it's two out of three children meeting those criteria. Those criteria are based on your body mass index and the charts. It's been increasing.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I'm going to ask a technical question.

According to Health Canada's consultation report, some stakeholders indicated that there should be exemptions from the ban, in particular the sponsorship of sports teams, community events, and school events and activities.

The Food and Drugs Act defines advertisement as “any representation by any means whatever for the purpose of promoting directly or indirectly the sale or disposal of any food, drug, cosmetic or device”.

Under this bill, would the prohibition on advertising extend to sponsorship, the use of brand elements—such as cartoon characters—on packaging, labelling, sales promotions and endorsements? In other words, are there exemptions in this bill that would permit that kind of advertising?

[David Lee]

You will see in the bill that there is a placeholder for regulation to define which advertising would attract the prohibition. That's for our policy discussion to talk about sponsorship and other things, to see what would be within scope. That would be refined.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Do you know if, internally, it is the desire of the department to use that definition in the Food and Drugs Act of “advertisement”?

[David Lee]

Yes, advertising is already in the act. It's very broad, but there's a cue in this particular proposal to be able to refine that in the regulations.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

To refine it in what way? Would it make it broader or narrower? What's the thinking behind having that exemption?

[David Lee]

It couldn't be broader, because you can't broaden something that's in the act, but it can certainly be refined to make sure that we're all very clear about which activities in advertising would apply under the prohibition.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Ms. Lattanzio, do you want to see any narrowing of that definition?

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

I definitely do. I'm very cognizant of the fact that there are activities that happen in our parks in the summer. There's soccer and there are exhibitions. It's part of community life, if you want.

I think what I would like to see is that if there is a sponsor that we limit, like we do in Quebec.... If there is a particular company and we have only the name of the company—it's not attached to a cartoon character that's next to it or a series of colours and colour patterns, or something that would drive or entice the child to make the connection between the two—that is where I would set the fine line. I will leave that up to consultation, when that takes place, in terms of it being defined and refined in the regulations.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Ms. Lattanzio and Mr. Davies.

That concludes the questions from each of the parties. We are now going to move to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, the short title, and of the preamble are postponed. Therefore, the chair calls clause 2.

(On clause 2)

Is there any discussion in connection with clause 2?

Go ahead, Mr. van Koeverden.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

We would propose to delete clause 2 entirely.