Health Committee on March 30th, 2023

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

To be clear, it's the promoting of the healthy lifestyle that's ruled out of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Which is not contemplated in the bill...yes.

Mr. Thériault.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Chair, I want to make sure I understand one thing.

If the amendment goes beyond the scope of the bill, then the answer to the question that was asked to introduce the amendment is “no”. In other words, there will be no problem, since that is not what the bill is about. If the answer is yes, then the amendment should be discussed.

Do you understand?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I think I understand.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

If the amendment is beyond the scope of the bill, in response to the question of whether, for example, a digital sign with a sponsor's name on it would be prohibited, the answer would be no, because that's beyond the scope of the bill; but if the answer is yes, the amendment would have to be discussed, since we would have to know, indeed, in what context it would be allowed or not.

I'm asking the question. There are clerks here, so I'm asking the question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I have just received the following notice: a ruling was made, and the only option available to the committee is to challenge the chair's decision. If that ruling is overturned, it will be possible to debate the amendment and complete the process.

Ms. Goodridge, you have the floor.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In light of that answer, and in light of the very serious piece that I brought up while moving this amendment, I will respectfully challenge the chair, because I think there's value in having the conversation as to whether those types of activities would be banned.

I would urge all colleagues from all political parties to consider at least allowing us to have this conversation, because I think it's critical. In many of our small towns, there are no other options for arenas that don't have a sponsorship from someone else. That could be very problematic and limit the choice for children to play organized hockey and a variety of different organized sports. That is something we shouldn't be preventing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

A motion to challenge the chair is not debatable. The decision of the chair is that CPC-1 is not admissible.

Shall the ruling of the chair be sustained?

We need to take a standing vote on that, Mr. Clerk.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5)

Mr. van Koeverden.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think it's an important conversation. I'm glad we touched on it. I want to add that this conversation was had at previous meetings of HESA with the Honourable Senator Nancy Greene Raine. I believe if anybody goes back through HESA, it was meeting 100. It's easy to find in HESA 42-1. There was a fulsome discussion on the issue, and where it landed was that things like Timbits hockey and Coca-Cola scoreboards would not be impacted. It would be up to regulatory decisions.

The senator at the time was insistent, as a former athlete, as I would be, that children's sports not be impacted.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Go ahead, Mrs. Goodridge.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With all due respect, while that was the conversation at the time nearly five years ago, that also leaves a lot for us to trust to the regulations, because that means that could explicitly be banned by not having that clearly stated in the act. That is problematic and could impact the health and well-being of children long term. I don't understand why members, who are such proponents of children's healthy living and children's activity, would not want to see this explicitly protected in this piece of legislation.

Perhaps, it's because they come from a large centre where there are many options for many training—

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

This personal stuff is just really not necessary. I've lived in rural parts of Canada, and that's totally unnecessary.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Go ahead, Ms. Goodridge. It's a point of debate.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was pointing out the fact that the reality is very different on the ground in some parts of rural Canada compared to urban centres, and that reality needs to be pointed out. It's a situation where I think it is absolutely shameful that we are not doing what we can to make sure that this is protected long term, because, frankly, this is problematic. If we aren't allowed to have our children playing sports in an arena because the scoreboard 25 years ago was sponsored by Coca-Cola, that could have a major impact on children's healthy living. I'll leave it at that, but I do think that this is a mistake and I want the record to reflect that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Go ahead, Mr. Jeneroux.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

What we're doing right now is referring back to the previous meetings in 42-1 regularly. If we could perhaps get the two witnesses to weigh in on this again, I think that would probably add a little bit of comfort on our end. We know that it has been five years since then, so there might be some wording we could look back at, or perhaps there will be another committee here in five years that looks at a similar aspect of this.

I'd ask you, Chair, if we could hear from them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I wonder if our witnesses might be prepared to respond to Mr. Jeneroux's inquiry.

Do you want to restate the question? I guess the answer is, go ahead and ask. I mean, we're to be doing clause-by-clause, but I do, indeed, think that this is a valuable discussion. I'm not sure that the middle of clause-by-clause is the place for it, but hopefully you'll be able to ask your question and get your answer, and we'll be able to get moving here. Go ahead.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

I don't want to belabour it. I think the question was, as previously, about Timbits, Pepsi and Coca-Cola advertising to kids in hockey arenas and gymnasiums. Could we get it on record that this particular bill isn't planning to impact those areas?

[David Lee]

I think the most we can say is that we are aware of the past discussion in the department, and the time to consider this would be as the regulations move forward. This would be a very important issue to note and discuss to see what's appropriate. Again, should it be the case, through that consultation of youth forums, then it would be in the regulatory development cycle. There would definitely, I expect, be comments on that and a willingness to take a look. Obviously, healthy lifestyles are important to the department.

I think that's as much as we can say at this point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. Davies, you have the floor.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

In furtherance of the debate that's not a debate, I would just say this.

First of all, I would refer all of my colleagues to the preamble, if people need any guidance. I have rarely seen a preamble this long and this detailed. It sets out in, frankly, unusual detail precisely what the bill is for, what it's targeted at and what its purpose is. That purpose is to prevent the marketing of unhealthy foods to children.

Following from our previous discussion about prescribed foods, this bill is not aimed at a particular advertiser. It's aimed at the advertising of a particular food. If Tim Hortons was advertising a great big drippy chocolate sugared donut on a board in a hockey arena, I presume that might be on the prescribed foods list that exceeds the prescribed sugar. I don't think anybody in this room would want that advertisement to be seen by children under 13. That's the purpose of this.

Now, Tim Hortons serves lots of healthy food. They could advertise coffee. I presume coffee is not going to be on this list. By the way, coffee is probably not being targeted at children under 13. There are healthy sandwiches that they sell.

With Coca-Cola, I'm not quite sure because I'm not sure that Coca-Cola.... I mean, Coca-Cola may sell water. Coca-Cola is not being prevented from sponsoring or advertising in an arena. It's what we are permitting them to advertise to children under 13. It's the prescribed foods that we're prohibiting, so I would imagine that a bottle of Coke probably will be prescribed and, frankly, shouldn't be targeted to children even if it's masqueraded in a sports arena. Frankly, I think that's incongruous when kids are engaged in a healthy activity like skating or hockey. Why would we counter that by advertising a sugar beverage to them that is completely counter to that activity?

I just want to conclude by reminding us that there was some pretty devastating testimony on this subject. Dr. Tom Warshawski said:

I'm not disparaging the role of physical activity. As the speakers from Jumpstart and Participaction said, physical activity is so important for mental health and fitness, but it's not the major lever to affect unhealthy weights.

The other part of it is this. He said:

The budget for marketing unhealthy foods and beverages to kids is over $1 billion per year. It uses sophisticated marketing spokespersons, sportspeople, cartoon characters. It's pervasive. It's all the way through the Internet and social media. There are billions of views per year in social media. It's a cannon compared to the popgun of media literacy.

I think we have to send a clear message. If we want to protect our kids from the very effective and sophisticated advertising techniques and billions of dollars spent to try to attract children to products that will harm their health, then I think that has to be the dominant goal of this bill.

I'm comforted and I'm satisfied that this bill is targeting the prescribed foods that exceed the prescribed fat, sodium and sugar capacities. That will be carefully and surgically listed so that this is the goal.

That's why I'm not concerned about, frankly, the interests of advertisers who want to peddle unhealthy food. I'm concerned about protecting our children from that. I think that this bill clearly, through the preamble and through the actual wording of it, makes that distinction very well.

I don't think that any advertiser who wishes to support sports or athletic programs is prohibited from doing so. We're just not letting them use that as a vehicle to push unhealthy products on kids.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

We'll have Mr. Thériault and then Mrs. Goodridge.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Chair, I have little to add, as my colleague Mr. Davies gave a detailed statement.

In my view, it would be interesting to have the response of the witnesses. In fact, that is why I provided my support and asked the question.

The bill is about food and advertising directed to children. As far as I know, an arena is a public place with people of different age groups moving around in it. In that sense, I do not see a problem with an arena being called the Coca-Cola Arena, because it is not strictly aimed at children. It is not an advertisement that causes children to consume or overconsume the product.

However, if there was a swimming competition, for example, and the primary sponsor was distributing related products that promote the consumption of their product, we would have to intervene. I think that's important.

When a law is challenged, people go back to see what the intent of the legislator was. When we have to comment, even if it's been done in the past, it's important that things be said again and that it be possible to find, in the discussions we had, what the intent of the legislator was.

That is strictly what my interventions were intended to do. I am in favour of the bill. However, just because a legislator is in favour of a bill does not mean that he or she does not have the task... There are several subsequent steps and, as we know, the devil is in the details. When we discuss the regulatory frameworks, I imagine we will be consulting with industry stakeholders and advertisers. The clearer we are in our deliberations, the more it will help people understand our intent.

That is my sole purpose at this table. I urge my colleagues to have a lot of deference to each other in terms of the prior work that they did to understand the bill before they sat around this table.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. Goodridge.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The points that have been brought up by my colleague Mr. Thériault were very poignant because, while in many cases we're referring to debates that happened in the previous Parliament, if this was ever challenged, the judges would not be looking at those conversations. They would only be looking at these conversations, when we skipped having witnesses, we skipped having these pieces and we skipped having these very conversations.

I don't want to belabour the point, but I think it's incumbent upon us to make sure that we're actually having these conversations, because.... Perhaps this concern is a non sequitur, but maybe it isn't. I don't understand why there's so much fear from the government to have that conversation, so that we can hear if it's actually a problem. Is it yes or no? If it's not a problem, I would have no problem pulling that amendment away. I understand we're beyond that point in the conversation, so that's not possible.

I think that's the very crux of this issue. Fundamentally, I have a hard time sitting here when the government says, “Don't worry. Just trust us.” My job isn't to just trust the government. My job is to make sure that we have the best possible legislation for Canadians—always.

This is why I'm asking these questions. This is why I'm doing this. This is why I wanted some clarification, and this is why I wanted to have witnesses.