44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 27, 2022 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to Bill C-252, legislation that seeks to amend the Food and Drugs Act, and more specifically seeks to impose an advertising ban on unhealthy food and beverage products to youth under the age of 13. This bill is substantively similar to Bill S-228 from the 42nd Parliament, which I similarly opposed.
The objective of the bill is a laudable one. After all, obesity is a real problem in Canada among young people. Recent data indicates that approximately 30% of children and youth between the ages of five and 17 are obese. That is not good. That is a problem, and it is one that we must work toward addressing.
The issue with the bill is not its laudable objective, but rather that it seeks a simplistic solution to a complex problem, that of childhood obesity, for which there are many underlying factors. It is truly a multidimensional challenge.
The idea proposed in the bill is not a new one. Similar advertising bans have been implemented in other jurisdictions, including in the province of Quebec. In the case of Quebec, the law has been on the books for more than 40 years.
Unfortunately, the data from jurisdictions that have such bans in place demonstrate that the intended purpose of reducing childhood obesity has not borne out. In the province of Quebec, it has been on the books for 40 years. What has happened in the last 40 years? Childhood obesity has gone up, not down. If it worked, we would expect to see it go down, but that has not happened.
Looking at other jurisdictions within Canada, we see that these types of bans have not had their intended impact. We can look at a province like Quebec, which has a ban, and provinces like Alberta, which do not. For example, the Canadian community health survey indicates that my province of Alberta has a similar level of childhood obesity as that of the province of Quebec.
Given that this has been tried and tested in other jurisdictions and it has not worked, it is difficult to see how implementing this nationally would suddenly work. I do not believe it will. The evidence is not there, and on that basis alone, this bill merits to be defeated.
Let me stress that this is not just a bill with a laudable objective and with a solution that has not worked, but maybe it would work, so let us give it a try. No. This bill, if passed, would have very serious repercussions to key sectors of the economy, including reducing the GDP, costing jobs and, ironically, adversely impacting youth amateur sport.
With respect to some of the economic concerns of this bill, this bill has the potential to have major ramifications when it comes to food and beverage advertising writ large. That is a result of vague language in the bill. More specifically, the bill would seek to ban advertising directed primarily at persons under the age of 13.
The bill says advertising “that is directed primarily at”. What does “directed primarily at” mean? The bill does not specify. It does not provide any clarity. Instead, it is left to regulators at Health Canada to fill in the blanks. That simply is not good enough.
It is not good enough that we would be voting on a bill that seeks to impose an advertising ban without understanding exactly what it is we are banning. When the previous iteration of the bill, Bill S-228, was studied, key stakeholders, including the Retail Council of Canada and Restaurants Canada, expressed concern that the bill could result in a sweeping ban of all food and beverage advertising directed at adults and children alike.
This concern was informed by indications that Health Canada would be taking a broad view of interpreting what constitutes child-directed marketing. To mitigate against unintended consequences, these and other stakeholders put forward recommendations to tighten up the language and incorporate more precise language into the bill. That precise language recommended by key stakeholders remains absent from this version of the bill, so the very issue that was raised with respect to Bill S-228 remains a problem with respect to Bill C-252.
With respect to amateur sport, the bill before us could prevent, or at the very least diminish, corporate partnership and sponsorship of youth amateur sport. There are sponsorships, such as Timbits hockey, Timbits soccer, and McDonald's Canada, which sponsors more than 50,000 kids to play hockey, that could be shut down as a result of the bill because of the broad definition of “advertisement” under the Food and Drugs Act coupled with the vague language in the bill. Indeed, when Bill S-228 was studied, Hockey Canada and Canada Soccer expressed real concern that millions of sponsorship dollars for their organizations would dry up.
It is a bit ironic that a bill that seeks to reduce childhood obesity would have the effect of taking away programs and opportunities for young people to participate in amateur sport, which is a tried, tested and proven way to stay healthy and avoid obesity, in contrast to the bill before us, which is a tried, tested and failed way to reduce childhood obesity.
In closing, Bill C-252 is just another Liberal government-knows-best bill. It would put power in the hands of regulators instead of putting power in the hands of parents. We on this side of the House, as Conservatives, trust parents not bureaucrats to make the best decisions, including health decisions for their children. For that and the reasons I have outlined, I will be opposing the bill.
955 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to see you back here in the House. I sincerely hope you had a nice summer. It was probably much like mine, with a lot of time spent resolving problems with passport applications. Of course, we always enjoy helping our constituents.
We are considering a bill with noble goals and intentions. Bill C-252 deals with the prohibition of food and beverage marketing directed at little children. I am pleased to speak to the bill because I will probably be at the standing committee on health for the clause-by-clause study. There are a number of items that I will be very interested in looking at; I will come back to that later.
First, we must acknowledge that there is an obesity problem among adults and children. If we believe a report from the public health officer for Quebec dating from 2016, the trend is still clear. Fully 52% of the population is overweight. Approximately 18% of people are obese, and that is also true among children between the ages of two and 17. In children aged two to 17, the prevalence of obesity or excess weight has increased from 15% to 26% over time. The diagnosis is clear. We need to act. I think there is a role for public policy-makers and governments to play. That is essentially what this bill does, without claiming to fix everything.
We know the long-term consequences of childhood obesity. There is no clear cause-and-effect relationship, but we do know that there is an epidemiological link to cardiovascular disease, diabetes, musculoskeletal conditions and certain cancers. Preventing these diseases becomes even more important. Obviously, this is a prevention bill. However, the Liberal government, which includes the member who introduced this bill, refuses to give Quebec and the provinces the health transfers they are calling for in order to be able to provide people with the necessary care.
I would therefore encourage my colleague to pressure her caucus and her government. I know her well because her riding is not far from mine. I know her constituents are like mine. They think health transfers are important. I also know she has a member of the National Assembly in her riding, one of the MNAs who unanimously called for health transfers. It is important to listen, but it is also important to look ahead, and there are a lot of good things in this bill.
Some will see this as proof the government thinks it knows everything. They will see the bill as a socialist conspiracy. That is pretty much what my Conservative colleague was insinuating.
I can actually hear a small child in the House of Commons. That child may one day be protected by this piece of legislation.
Children cannot differentiate between information and persuasion. Their brains are not capable of it. The Standing Committee on Health heard from the president of the Association des pédiatres du Québec about child development. Children begin to distinguish persuasion from content around four or five years of age, but it is not until they reach seven or eight that they can really tell the difference between ads and content. They may not really understand until they are 11 or 12.
Most of the time, these ads are not meant to convince anyone, to provide information or to help consumers make informed decisions. It is persuasion aimed at children who are not in a position to make rational and informed decisions, which is why we need to support them.
I can assure the House that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the bill and this principle. I think it is a good thing. This bill is also consistent with the Quebec government's 2019 action plan to reduce the consumption of sugary drinks and promote water. Water can be drunk, but oil cannot. The Quebec government states in its report that the consumption of sugary drinks and the marketing practices that promote their consumption must be de-normalized. There is, after all, a cause and effect relationship.
Of course, someone in Alberta could always make comparisons and think they are just as thin as a Quebecker, and wonder why Quebeckers have advertizing laws. Such statements do not work. These statistics and comparisons between different jurisdictions are pretty shaky. This is counterfactual thinking, and these arguments are pretty weak. At the very least, it is hard to imagine that this bill will make the situation any worse.
Quebec's policy was obviously designed to prompt a reduction in the consumption of sugary drinks. The Bloc Québécois is here in Parliament to express the consensus of the Quebec National Assembly, the vision of Quebeckers and the vision of the Government of Quebec. It would be consistent with our mission in the Bloc Québécois to support this bill, at least at second reading so that it can be sent to committee.
This bill also reflects the recommendations made by the WHO in 2010. The Government of Quebec was not alone in considering this issue. This WHO report applies to the whole world, not just Quebec. One of the recommendations made by the WHO in its 2010 report reads as follows: “Given that the effectiveness of marketing is a function of exposure and power, the overall policy objective should be to reduce both the exposure of children to, and power of, marketing of foods high in saturated fats, trans-fatty acids...”. In short, we need to take action.
Experts have recognized that there is a link between marketing and consumption. We are not saying that it is a definitive link. We are saying that there is a link and we must act. That is consistent with the Quebec government's position, the Quebec government's strategy, the WHO's position and how the Bloc Québécois has voted in the past. I am thinking in particular of Bill C‑237, which, I believe, was passed unanimously by the House of Commons at first or second reading. We are being consistent with our past voting and support. We will continue in that vein with the bill being studied. There is also Bill C‑228 on food and beverage marketing directed at children; it died on the Order Paper.
It is only fitting that we support this bill. I invite my colleagues, including the Conservatives, to vote in favour of this bill. Let us support it because as parliamentarians we know that second reading is not a final step. If there are concerns to be addressed, corrections to be made and discussions required, I can assure my colleague on the Standing Committee on Health that she will find a colleague ready to work constructively on this bill, which I find quite promising. I know that it is well intentioned. Let us refer it to committee.
We are looking for some assurances in committee. First of all, Quebec did not help develop the federal, provincial and territorial framework for action to promote healthy weights. Quebec does not endorse any pan-Canadian response that encroaches on its jurisdictions, so we will have to ensure that this holds true for this bill. Furthermore, Quebec alone is responsible for developing and implementing programs to promote a healthy lifestyle within its borders. I say that, but, at first glance, it does not appear that the bill currently under consideration encroaches on our jurisdiction.
Plus, a simple reminder that Quebec has full jurisdiction over health matters, which I feel needs to be pointed out every day, if not every hour. Furthermore, we must ensure that the bill will not interfere with Quebec's jurisdiction over civil law. Section 248 of Quebec's Consumer Protection Act already prohibits advertising directed at children.
The bill does not seem to go much further, except that the Quebec legislation does not currently regulate store windows, displays, containers, packaging, labels, and so on. Some procedures will therefore need to be reviewed. Perhaps we will find out why my Conservative colleagues do not like the Quebec legislation.
I have said it many times and I will say it agin. The intention is good. The public health objective is good. The reasoning behind the bill is quite rational and well thought out. Now, once again, as is often the case with issues related to health legislation, there is a fine line between Quebec's jurisdiction and the federal government's jurisdiction. However, it is obviously worth it, because the health of our children is of the utmost importance. It is worth passing this bill at second reading, sitting down and studying it diligently. I invite all my fellow parliamentarians to do just that.
1472 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and support this bill at second reading, Bill C-252, which would amend the Food and Drugs Act to prohibit marketing foods and beverages that contribute to excess sugar, saturated fats or sodium in children's diets in a manner that is directed primarily at persons who are under 13 years of age.
Poor nutrition and unhealthy food and beverages are key contributors to poor health in children. Good eating habits and avoiding unhealthy food are key preventative elements of health policy, not only for our children but for generations to come. New Democrats have been calling for a ban on junk food advertising targeted at children for many years. We believe that it is wrong to let wealthy corporations manipulate our children's eating habits, particularly to the detriment of their health.
New Democrats want every child in Canada to develop a healthy relationship to nutrition and the foods they consume. We are calling for the establishment of a national school nutrition program to give every student access to healthy, nutritious food and to make healthy eating a daily lesson for our kids.
The data is clear. Numerous studies have found strong associations between increases in advertising of non-nutritious foods and rates of childhood obesity. One study by Yale University found that children exposed to junk food advertising ate 45% more junk food than children not exposed to such advertisements. In Canada, as much as 90% of the food marketed to children and youth on TV and online is unhealthy.
By way of background, there is strong agreement among leading Canadian pediatric and allied health organizations that the impact of food and beverage marketing is real, significant and harmful to children's development. Marketing to children has changed dramatically in the last 10 to 15 years as well. Today, it is a seamless, sophisticated and often interactive process. The line between ads and children's entertainment has blurred with marketing messages being inserted into the places that children play and learn. Three-quarters of children in Canada are exposed to food marketing while using their favourite social media applications.
Canadians are the second-largest buyers of ultraprocessed foods and drinks in the world, second only to, of course, the Americans. To give members an idea of how epidemic this problem is, nearly one in three Canadian children is overweight or obese. The rise in childhood obesity in recent decades is linked to changes in our eating habits. Overweight children are more likely to develop health problems later in life, including heart disease, type 2 diabetes and high blood pressure.
Canada's New Democrats, as I have said, have advocated for a ban on unhealthy food and beverage marketing to children for a long time. In 2012, my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby introduced legislation to expressly prohibit advertising and promotion for commercial purposes of products, food, drugs, cosmetics or devices directed to children under 13 years of age. As members can see, this is a much broader prohibition that would protect our children not only from unhealthy food but from being preyed upon by multinational corporations who would take advantage of their youth.
Quebec has prohibited commercial advertising that targets children under the age of 13 since 1980. Other jurisdictions have since adopted similar legislation, including Norway, United Kingdom, Ireland and Sweden. Quebec's restrictions on advertising to children have been shown to have a positive impact on nutrition by reducing fast food consumption by 13%. This translates to 16.8 million fewer fast food meals sold in that province and an estimated 13.4 million fewer fast food calories consumed per year. Quebec also has the lowest rates of obesity among five- to 17-year-olds as well as the highest rates of vegetable and fruit consumption in Canada.
In 2016, Senator Nancy Greene Raine introduced the child health protection act that was S-228. That legislation would have banned the marketing of unhealthy food and beverages in a manner that is primarily directed at children under 17 years of age, a higher age than this bill would set. At the House Standing Committee on Health, the Liberals amended Bill S-228 to reduce the age limit from under 17 years old to under 13 years old and they added a five-year legislative review.
Although Bill S-228 passed third reading in both the House and the Senate, unfortunately that bill died on the Order Paper when Parliament was dissolved for the 2019 federal election. Again, Bill C-252 is similar to that Senate bill, with the following key differences. Again, the current bill would set the age that would prohibit advertising at under 13 years of age, where the Senate bill was under 17 years of age. There is also a change in definition. The current bill says, “no person shall advertise foods and beverages that contribute to excess sugar, saturated fats or sodium in children’s diets in a manner that is directed primarily at persons who are under 13 years of age.” The Senate bill just said, “no person shall advertise unhealthy food in a manner that is directed primarily at children.”
Finally, of course, this bill before us today has, once again, a five-year review that would focus on whether, after this bill became law, there was an increase in the advertising of foods and beverages that contribute to excess sugar, saturated fats or sodium in children's diets in a manner that is directed primarily at persons who are 13 to 16 years of age.
I want to pause for a moment there and make a comment on that. There is a healthy debate on this bill about what the proper age should be set at. Again, the Senate bill was more ambitious and said not to let advertisers advertise to children under 17. This is under 13, and one of the concerns, of course, is that advertisers, who are extraordinarily sophisticated as we are talking about large multinational multi-billion dollar conglomerates that make a lot of money peddling chocolate, sugary beverages, etc., to children, will instead shift and focus their advertising on 14- to 17-year olds. I think this is a healthy way to compromise, by having a study that would monitor it carefully to see if, in fact, that does happen, because if it does then this House could then adjust our legislation in five years on an empirical basis to cure that mischief.
The previous health minister's mandate letter did direct her to “introduce new restrictions on the commercial marketing of food and beverages to children”. The current health minister's 2021 mandate letter instructed him as well to support “restrictions on the commercial marketing of food and beverages to children.” The Liberal 2021 platform pledged to “Introduce new restrictions on the commercial marketing of food and beverages to children and establish new front-of-package labelling to promote healthy food choices.”
We are happy, then, to see this legislation before the House. Unfortunately, it is done through private members' legislation and not, as stated repeatedly in the mandate letters and in the Liberal platform, by the government itself. No matter; as long as it passes, that is what is important. However, it is curious that the current LIberal government has not kept its word in its mandate letters and in its platform, and introduced legislation itself.
Industry organizations, including the Association of Canadian Advertisers, the Canadian Beverage Association, Food and Consumer Products of Canada and Restaurants Canada, have called legislation like this a “significant overreach”. They claim that legislation like this would lead to serious consequences for the economy. On the other side of the coin, Canadian pediatric, child advocacy and other health experts are strong supporters of this bill.
New Democrats want to stand unambiguously on the side of child health and welfare, not corporate profits. We want children to develop a healthy relationship to nutrition and the foods they consume, rather than being manipulated by sophisticated marketing campaigns, especially when it would affect their health.
Over 120 organizations and children's health advocates across Canada have called on the current government to restrict food and beverage marketing to kids. The Stop Marketing to Kids Coalition is governed by 12 steering committee member organizations. They range from the Heart and Stroke Foundation to the Childhood Obesity Foundation, the Canadian Dental Association, the Canadian Cancer Society, Diabetes Canada and Dieticians of Canada.
The pervasive marketing of unhealthy foods is a contributing factor to the growth of childhood and adolescent disease. Sex and gender differences come into play in the design of and responses to these marketing strategies, contributing to the perpetuation of stereotyped behaviour and generating disparities in food choices and health. This particularly hurts girls.
Studies have demonstrated that this intervention, as is presented in this bill, would result in both overall cost savings and improved long-term health outcomes, with the greatest benefits of all to the most socio-economically disadvantaged.
Let us do this for our children.
1529 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 5:46:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties, and I hope that if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion: That notwithstanding any standing order, special order—
Some hon. members: No.
39 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 5:46:53 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons will have heard the noes, but I will let the hon. leader conclude the presentation.
26 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 5:47:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have a point of order. A tradition in the House is that we hear the motion. I would like to hear the motion that the—
29 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 5:47:11 p.m.
- Watch
I just invited the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons to read—
17 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 5:47:45 p.m.
- Watch
There was no ruling per se. There was a recommendation to do that, not a specific ruling.
17 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I move that notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, later today, the House shall continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment until 12:00 midnight for the purposes of considering Bill C-30, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (temporary enhancement to the Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax credit) at second reading, and if at the debate tonight no member rises to speak, the question be put, a recorded division be deemed requested and deferred until tomorrow at the conclusion of Oral Questions and the House be deemed adjourned until the next sitting day, and that the debate pursuant to Standing Order 38 not take place.
121 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
18 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is truly disappointing to see this. We are ready to work for Canadians. We were ready to stay here until midnight to discuss important issues for Canadians to get the relief the Conservatives have been demanding. They have been saying that Canadians need relief on inflation, yet here is an opportunity to debate that. Here is an opportunity to get that relief to Canadians faster on a bill that they support, but they would rather play parliamentary games than help Canadians. That is a shame.
I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak ti the private member's bill introduced by the hon. member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Bill C-252, known as the child health protection act, which proposes changes to the Food and Drugs Act to better protect our children from the harms of food advertising and, ultimately, the health implications associated with unhealthy eating.
Healthy eating is a key priority for our government. It is for that reason we have worked since 2016 to implement a robust set of initiatives through the healthy eating strategy. The strategy has been the cornerstone of our plan to promote healthy eating for all Canadians, including and very importantly, our young ones. This plan has led to action on a number of fronts, from releasing a new and modernized Canada Food Guide, prohibiting the commercial use of trans fats in food, updating sodium reduction targets and, most recently, publishing new front-of-package labelling regulations to provide simplified and easily visible information to help Canadians make informed and healthy choices. These policies are having, and will have, real and tangible impacts, but promoting healthy eating is a complex and ongoing effort, and we cannot stop here.
Members will know that our government has made clear our commitment to protecting our most vulnerable populations by supporting restrictions on the commercial marketing of food and beverages to children. The sad reality is that the current food environment continues to pose real challenges for families in being able to make nutritious food choices, including the impact on children by food marketing techniques. This is why our government believes in demonstrating strong leadership in this area. Our actions are guided by the recognition that a healthy population is key to reducing vulnerabilities at public health events and protecting our health care system. In addition, a healthy population is central to the long-term growth and prosperity of Canadians today and well into the future.
I am pleased that a number of my colleagues in the House share our government's concern about childhood obesity, diet-related chronic disease and the risks to long-term health, and rightly so. We know that one of the consequences of unhealthy eating is chronic disease, which is on the rise. Diet-related chronic diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular diseases and some cancers, are now a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in Canada, and most concerning is that these diseases are starting to affect children.
Obesity, although a multifactorial condition, is influenced by a range of factors, including environmental and individual factors. Diets with excess intakes of sodium, sugars and saturated fat are a key risk factor linked to obesity and other diet-related diseases. Studies have shown that most children in Canada are consuming excess amounts of some or all three of these nutrients. Given what we know about the number of interconnected factors that influence our diet, our government believes in taking a comprehensive approach to tackling the issue, and food advertising is an area of high priority.
Research has shown us that of all age groups, children are particularly vulnerable to food advertising. Food advertising influences their attitudes, preferences, purchase requests, consumption patterns and overall health. The more children are exposed to food advertising, the more likely they are to request those foods. In Canada, children are exposed to food advertising throughout their day in a variety of settings, including in their homes, schools, restaurants and grocery stores.
Unsurprisingly, television has long been an important source of exposure to food advertising. Despite our change in technology and media-consumption habits, it continues to contribute significantly to children's exposure. In fact, data collected through Health Canada's monitoring estimates that children between the ages of two and 11 are seeing up to 33 food ads per week on television.
The popularity of smart phones, tablets, computers and other devices has also made it easier for advertisers to reach children and amplify their messaging. A study published in 2019 estimated that children in Canada aged seven to 11 saw approximately 30 food ads per week on social media apps alone. The vast majority of these ads were for foods that contain excess sodium, sugars, and saturated fats. In fact, more than 90% of them did.
Advertisers typically employ strategies that strongly appeal to children, such as featuring characters from children's programs and movies, offering incentives like free toys and featuring celebrities, athletes and influencers popular with children.
Not only that, the emergence of sophisticated digital advertising technology over the last decade has enabled industry to reach specific audiences with precision, and children are no exception. Digital advertisers are able to analyze, access and utilize a wealth of data to increase the reach and effectiveness of their advertisements, including users' interests, location, demographics, information, emotional state and much more.
These advances are further exacerbating the need for government to step in and help children make healthier eating decisions by restricting food advertising directed at them. Restricting the advertising of certain foods to children is not a novel idea. Over the years, public health experts and advocacy organizations have continued to tell us that government intervention is required to protect children in Canada.
When looking at our counterparts internationally, many countries have already taken action or are currently moving to restrict food advertising to children to protect this vulnerable segment of the population. We recognize the truly global aspect of this issue. It is paramount that we do more to protect our children from the influence of food advertisers.
Beyond the very obvious health benefits, there is a very strong economic imperative for doing everything we can to promote healthy diets. We anticipate Canada's life expectancy will be reduced by three years due to excess weight and obesity by 2050. The economic burden of obesity is also significant. The OECD reported that obesity accounted for 10.6% of all Canadian health expenditures and is one of the highest rates of all countries analyzed.
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the World Obesity Federation estimated that the economic burden of diet-related chronic diseases, obesity and other modifiable risk factors at $26.7 billion per year, rising to $33.7 billion per year by 2025. Overall, the evidence is crystal clear. Obesity and diet-related chronic diseases lead to decreased life expectancy, increased economic hardship, lower educational and employment outcomes and decreased labour force productivity.
Our government is committed to promoting healthy eating and supporting Canadians in making healthier food choices. If we recognize the need to take action now and prevent disease in the future, generations of Canadians will remain productive members of society and enjoy good health. The bill would help limit the undue influence of advertising that makes healthy eating a challenge for families and their children.
There is one point that I would like to address that a previous member brought up, in terms of the concern for advertisers, the concern for sponsorships. It took me back to a time when the government was considering banning smoking and tobacco advertisers on various events, like jazz festivals and races, and that these events would disappear. This is going back decades, when members of Parliament stood up at the time and said that we needed to keep smoking advertisements on events that are marketed to children, because it is good for these events and they would disappear if those advertisements disappeared.
Those advertisements disappeared in the name of public health, and those activities still remained.
Using children's sports as a means to knock down this legislation is truly shocking. The sponsorship opportunities will continue to be there, as they were when this place debated tobacco advertising years ago.
I truly hope that all members of the House will come together and do what is right for our kids. I see it first-hand. The advertisements my kids see on YouTube and other platforms lead to the choices they want to make and where they want to go and, “Dad, can we go here?” We need to do better. We need to do better for them. We need to do better for all Canadians.
I hope all members of the House support the bill.
1472 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order.
I want to, respectfully, just draw your attention to an exchange that I had with the Speaker on June 9 of this year. The context was that the member for Kildonan—St. Paul sought unanimous consent for a motion and was cut off in the middle by the Speaker because of a number of nays.
I asked the Speaker, “Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could clarify the process. Is it your ruling going forward that if a member is saying 'no', you will stop the reading of the motion? I think we have had cases where some members were saying 'no' and yet the member continued with the unanimous consent motion.”
The Speaker ruled as follows. He said, “In fact, I have been getting this from both sides. Both government and opposition members have been asking for that exact type of behaviour, rather than let it all go through. Sometimes unanimous consent motions are used as a method of getting a message across, but that is what S.O. 31s are for. If we can just shift everything over, we can use it that way. We will do our best to make that happen.”
Given the precedent set and given the cutting off of the member for Kildonan—St. Paul on June 9, I ask that this be taken into consideration in future moments like this.
243 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 5:59:37 p.m.
- Watch
That was not a ruling from the Speaker. I maintain what I said: It was a recommendation by the Speaker.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock.
30 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-252, which focuses on the prohibition of food and beverage marketing directed at children.
This bill is mostly a preamble, and there is some strong language in the preamble about protecting kids from manipulative media and about their vulnerability to marketing and media. We should be concerned about marketing that is targeting kids with things that are beyond their age or could be harmful to them.
What about sexually explicit materials and their impact on kids? Numerous studies show the harmful impact that exposure to pornography and hypersexualized media can have on kids, including mental health issues such as depression, loneliness, low self-esteem, increased likelihood of accepting sexual violence or rape myths and an increased risk of girls being sexually harassed and boys committing sexual harassment. The Canadian Centre for Child Protection highlights that exposure to pornography by children may shape a child’s expectations in relationships, blur boundaries and increase a child’s risk of victimization, increase a child’s health risks through, for example, sexually transmitted infections or sexual exploitation, and increase a child’s risk of problematic sexual behaviour against other children in an effort to experiment.
We know that children’s exposure to sexually explicit content, particularly that which is violent and degrading, causes serious and significant harm to mental and emotional health. We know that much of the pornographic content published and hosted on MindGeek websites is sexist, racist or degrading to particular groups. We also know that some of the content involves actual violence or coercion, or is shared without consent.
We need to be focused on the marketing that targets children, and one of the most pressing areas is companies that publish sexually explicit material. If we want to protect “vulnerable children from the manipulative influence of marketing”, particularly harmful content online, we should be starting with predatory porn companies. Porn companies should not have unlimited access to kids online but they do, and they have no requirement to make sure those accessing their sites are actually over the age of 18.
For example, MindGeek is a Montreal-based company not too far from the riding of the sponsor of this bill. MindGeek employs around 1,600 people. It is based in Montreal and the online platforms it owns include Pornhub, RedTube, YouPorn and Brazzers. According to MindGeek's own data, its websites received approximately 4.5 billion visits each month in 2020, equivalent to the monthly visitors of Facebook. Many of those visitors were kids.
That is why last spring, when Bill C-11 was going through the Canadian heritage committee, I proposed amendments to help protect kids from exposure to sexually explicit content. Specifically, my amendment would have added to the policy objective of the Broadcasting Act that it “seek to protect the health and well-being of children by preventing the broadcasting to children of programs that include sexually explicit content”. It was supported by multiple child advocacy organizations and those fighting online exploitation in briefs submitted to the heritage committee.
Defend Dignity, a great organization, pointed out that these amendments are supported by general comment 25, which was recently adopted by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Canada is a signatory to it. The Convention on the Rights of the Child's general comment notes:
States parties should take all appropriate measures to protect children from risks to their right to life, survival and development. Risks relating to content, contact, conduct and contract encompass, among other things, violent and sexual content, cyberaggression and harassment, gambling, exploitation and abuse, including sexual exploitation and abuse, and the promotion of or incitement to suicide or life-threatening activities, including by criminals or armed groups designated as terrorist or violent extremist.
To be clear, they urge signatories like Canada to “take all appropriate measures to protect children from risks...relating to...violent and sexual content”. That is why Defend Dignity said, “Protecting children from the harms of sexually explicit material and society from the dangerous impact of violent sexually explicit material must be a priority.”
Timea’s Cause, another great organization, and OneChild, with a combined 32 years of experience in combatting the sexual exploitation of children, wrote to the heritage committee and said:
Today, Canadian children's access to sexually explicit content and the broadcasting of sexual violence has gone far beyond the realm of television and radio. This content is broadcasted online through digital advertising to pornography. The Internet has unleashed a tsunami of content that is objectifying, violent, and misogynistic in nature, and those viewing this harmful content are getting younger and younger....
This content greatly informs our cultural norms, values, and ideologies. In the case of children, who are still navigating the world and are in the process of developing their sense of self and esteem and learning how they should treat others and how others should treat them-this kind of material is detrimental to their development. It warps their understanding of sex, consent, boundaries, healthy relationships, and gender roles. Moreover, viewing this kind of online content has frightening links to rape, “sextortion”, deviant and illegal types of pornography such as online child abuse material, domestic violence, patronizing prostitution, and even involvement in sex trafficking.
At the heritage committee, when it came to a vote on my amendment, it had NDP support, but the Liberal Party voted it down. It was puzzling that, for the Liberals, who want to control the posts of regular Canadians and now target food advertisers, porn companies get a free pass when it comes to our kids.
I will say it again: Predatory companies such as MindGeek should not have unlimited access to our kids online. This is not new. Over two and a half years ago, we wrote to the Prime Minister asking him for help to stop this. We got no reply. Then, two years ago, MPs and senators from across party lines wrote the justice minister, and this was followed by a New York Times exposé asking, “Why does Canada allow this company to profit off videos of exploitation and assault?”
We then had an ethics committee study last year, a committee that the sponsor of the bill sat on, with 14 recommendations supported by all parties, and still there was no attempt by the government to provide oversight to a part of the Internet that has caused so much pain and suffering to women, youth and vulnerable individuals.
Now, there is a courageous, independent senator who is taking on predatory porn companies like MindGeek with the goal of keeping kids safe online. She has introduced Bill S-210, the protecting young persons from exposure to pornography act, in the Senate, which would require all that publish sexually explicit material to verify the age of the consumer.
The preamble of Bill S-210 states:
Whereas the consumption of sexually explicit material by young persons is associated with a range of serious harms, including the development of pornography addiction, the reinforcement of gender stereotypes and the development of attitudes favourable to harassment and violence — including sexual harassment and sexual violence — particularly against women;
Whereas Parliament recognizes that the harmful effects of the increasing accessibility of sexually explicit material online for young persons are an important public health and public safety concern;
The preamble then continues:
And whereas any organization making sexually explicit material available on the Internet for commercial purposes has a responsibility to ensure that it is not accessed by young persons;
This bill is at committee at the moment in the Senate, and it is hopefully headed to the House soon. When it gets here, I hope it will have strong support among all the parties.
When it comes to Bill C-252, I support the intentions and the aims of the bill, and I commend the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel for her efforts. As parents, we want our children to be healthy and protect them from marketing that could be harmful.
The striking difference between Bill S-210 and Bill C-252 is that the former has a clear framework put in place to do what it aims to do, and I do not see that in Bill C-252, which is not written in a way that could actually accomplish what it claims to do. We know that Quebec passed similar legislation in 1980 to ban advertising aimed at kids under 13, and it has largely been ineffective in lowering child obesity rates.
I also believe that parents should be able to make informed food choices for their families and have affordable access to nutritious foods, the latter of which has become incredibly difficult due to the inflation crisis caused by the Liberal government.
To be successful on this, we need co-operation across all sectors, and I look forward to working with members of the House and across the economy to ensure that we have parents and corporations working together to encourage healthy living.
1529 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 6:10:01 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Regina—Lewvan is rising on a point of order.
14 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 6:10:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I ask that the House give unanimous consent to support the Province of Saskatchewan's environmental plan. Saskatchewan's plan mirrors the plan of other provinces that the Liberal government has accepted. Therefore, based on fair and equal treatment of provinces within the dominion of Canada, Saskatchewan's plan should be accepted and approved by the government of the day.
62 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue has three minutes for his speech.
35 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, currently, more than half of Quebeckers are overweight, and 18% are obese. Obesity affects 6% of 12- to 17-year-olds and 17% of 18- to 24-year-olds. These statistics show that, for some people, obesity sets in early in life.
We have to take this problem seriously, but what can we do? Schools, public places and workplaces need to make it easy for everyone, young and old, to make healthy choices when it comes to being physically active, eating properly and, most importantly, limiting their consumption of sugary drinks.
Why I am pointing the finger at sugary drinks? It is because the total number of people living with diabetes has doubled since 2000.
The science shows that being overweight and especially being obese increases the risk of developing chronic diseases such as diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease and certain cancers. The health care cost of obesity is estimated to be nearly $3 billion, not to mention the effects of sugar and acidic drinks on oral health, which might also render the NDP-Liberal agreement useless.
That said, according to Quebec's Weight Coalition, advertising directed at children has a significant economic impact for the industry. We know that children have economic power because they influence almost 40% of family purchases. Since 2006, Canadian children have spent close to $3 billion in allowance money. They are more vulnerable to advertising. They may not yet have the ability to recognize the commercial nature of advertising. Above all, advertising builds brand loyalty among current and future consumers.
I would like to commend all those who have overcome, for example, their addiction to Diet Pepsi, which is one of the most difficult things to do. In particular, I want to commend my girlfriend.
In conclusion, we must protect children from marketing. For that reason, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this bill, provided that the provinces, like Quebec, have full jurisdiction. There must be clear, informative labelling to counteract the appealing colours, imagery and characters used in the ads. Food labelling must be clearer, and that is a federal jurisdiction. We propose mandatory labelling of foods and products like GMOs. This should not be left up to businesses. The federal government must introduce a traceability program to properly inform consumers and to promote buying local.
394 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today in support of my private member's bill, Bill C-252, known as the child health protection act, which aims to help the youngest and most impressionable Canadians maintain and improve their health by restricting the advertisement of certain foods to them. I am confident that hon. members in this chamber can agree on the harms that diets with excessive amounts of sugar, sodium and saturated fats can have on the health of Canadians.
Research has shown time and again that unhealthy diets with excessive consumption of these nutrients of concern are linked to a higher lifetime risk of obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes and other chronic diseases. We also know that developing healthy eating habits early in life is important to help protect children from developing these health problems in adulthood.
Each year, hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on food advertising in Canada by the food and beverage industry. Evidence shows that food advertising strongly influences children's food preferences and consumption patterns. Children in Canada are exposed to thousands of food advertisements every year across their daily settings and, unfortunately, most of these ads are for foods that contain excess sodium, sugar or saturated fats.
Opportunities to advertise to children have expanded with television and digital media. Children today are more digitally connected than ever before. Their screen time has increased and advertising directly to them has become easier. Tackling chronic diseases and maintaining public health is a whole-of-society issue and everyone has a role to play.
Since 2007, some of the largest food and beverage companies in Canada have been self-regulating certain types of food advertising to children. Recognizing that the current self-regulatory initiative did not go far enough, some industry associations have recently introduced a code. The code outlines criteria that the food and beverage industry will use to determine which advertisements are considered primarily directed at children, and it is the same industry that will determine the nutrient criteria in order to assess which foods are subject to the self-regulatory restrictions.
Although the proposed code is a step forward, it clearly demonstrates that the industry acknowledges the health consequences that food advertising can have on children. However, let us be clear. We know that voluntary codes are not enough to tackle and solve the issue. The first challenge of solely relying on industry self-regulation is simply that they are voluntary in nature. This allows restaurants, food companies and advertisers to abstain from signing on or simply to withdraw their adhesion at their convenience.
Also, criteria used for these codes often omit to stipulate important advertising techniques, tactics and sources of exposure that are known to appeal to and/or influence children. There is also a lack of transparency in the enforcement of these codes with no enforceable sanctions for non-compliance and, more importantly, it does not provide an independent monitoring.
It is clear from experience that self-regulatory initiatives do not go far enough to safeguard the health of our children. Canada's experience with industry-led self-regulatory initiatives have been similar to those of the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom and Spain. Research in each of these jurisdictions has clearly shown that self-regulatory marketing codes have limited impacts in curtailing children's exposure to the marketing of food and beverage products. Consequently, the U.K. and Spain are pursuing new mandatory restrictions following the observed limited impact of self-regulatory initiatives. This government agrees and believes industry self-regulation is not enough to protect children from being exposed to the harmful and incessant advertising of certain foods.
The Minister of Health's mandate includes a commitment to protect vulnerable populations, including our children, from a range of harms, such as the stream of commercial messaging and endorsements that trigger the most basic eating instincts, especially for foods containing excess levels of sodium, sugars and saturated fats. Supporting Bill C-252 is well aligned with this commitment and will help address many of the shortcomings of the current landscape of the industry-led self-regulating codes.
Our children, just like the one that is in the gallery with us today, are our priority and concrete action is needed now in order to ensure that they are not subject to and do not succumb to the aggressive advertising of foods that contain excess levels of nutrients of concern and that pose unnecessary risks to their health and the health of future generations.
759 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 6:18:46 p.m.
- Watch
The question is on the motion.
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
The hon. member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel.
54 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
