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.