Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I apologize, because I wasn't here initially when there were discussions on this earlier.
What I've heard today is talk about how this legislation is there to deal with advertising to children under 13. I've heard a lot talk today about how great the preamble is, how expansive it is and how it touches on so many things. However, the preamble only talks about 13- to 16-year-olds. It doesn't talk about 18-year-olds.
The reality is that, as doctors, we recognize that age level. At 16.... Every child is different. I get that aspect of things. Everyone is different. However, in all my years of practice dealing with adolescents, at what point in time do you declare someone mature enough to make decisions?
We've had a number of motions that have basically been taken away because the chair feels they aren't part of the committee and it's new information.
We're looking to increasing this to the age of 18. That is not what the parameters of this legislation were about, but now we're looking at expanding it to look at an aspect of the advertising that may come about along those lines.
My concerns are that, if we're going to stay within the parameters, if anything, in this legislation it should be “older but less than 16 years of age”. Otherwise, we are expanding into an age group which, at 16, can drive. There's an argument by many colleagues in the House of Commons that they should be able to vote, yet we turn around and we want to see what's being advertised to them.
The confusion is there. If we want to be consistent in the legislation and we want to have Canadians turn around and start to get trust back in us, as parliamentarians and the government, we need to be concise in what we do and not leave it open so that somebody down the road can come in and, using a regulation, make a change in the legislation.
I'm wondering if you can expand on why that is. Why are we going to that 16 to 18 category? Why is there the need for that?