Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology
Issue 37 - Evidence - June 11, 2015
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 11, 2015
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day, at 10:29 a.m., to continue its study on the increasing incidence of obesity in Canada: causes, consequences and the way forward.
Senator Kelvin Kenneth Ogilvie (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
[English]
I'm Kelvin Ogilvie from Nova Scotia, chair of the committee. I will invite my colleagues to introduce themselves, starting on my right.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman, Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Wells: David Wells, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Carolyn Stewart Olsen, New Brunswick.
Senator Enverga: Tobias Enverga, Ontario.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Nancy Ruth, Ontario.
Senator Raine: Nancy Greene Raine from B.C.
Senator Eggleton: Art Eggleton, senator from Toronto and deputy chair of the committee.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.
I want to remind all of us that we are continuing our study to examine and report on the increasing incidence of obesity in Canada: causes, consequences and the way forward.
Today, we are dealing with advertising best practices. We have from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, Scott Hutton, Executive Director, Broadcasting, and Nanao Kachi, Director, Social and Consumer Policy.
I understand, Mr. Hutton, that you will be making the presentation. I invite you to make your presentation, following which I will open the committee to questions from my leagues.
Scott Hutton, Executive Director, Broadcasting, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission: Mr. Chair and honourable senators, thank you for inviting us to provide input into your study on the increasing incidence of obesity in Canada. I am the Executive Director of Broadcasting at the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. With me today is Nanao Kachi, Director of Social and Consumer Policy.
The CRTC is acutely aware of the profound ability of the media to influence consumer behaviour. Although our role is to regulate broadcasters under the Broadcasting Act, we are nonetheless committed to supporting policies that fight obesity and unhealthy food behaviours. We are pleased to lend our expertise to this important cause. As you will hear in a moment, we play a number of important roles in ensuring that media advertising meets applicable standards.
We have been asked to speak on the subject of advertising directed at children. Let me begin by saying that although the CRTC does not directly regulate advertising content, we do intervene when it comes to basic standards for advertising aimed at Canadians aged 12 years and younger.
The CRTC requires that broadcasters adhere to the Broadcast Code for Advertising to Children. This document was created by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters in association with Advertising Standards Canada. Its purpose is to help advisers and advertising agencies recognize the special characteristics of children as an audience group when preparing commercial messages. I'm sure you can imagine, children, very young children in particular, often have a hard time differentiating between real life and imaginary situations. The Broadcast Code for Advertising to Children requires that content aimed at this age group respect, and not exploit, the power of a child's imagination.
[Translation]
The code is just one tool the industry uses to measure the appropriateness of advertising to children. Another is the Canadian Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative. Agreed to by some of Canada's largest food and beverage companies and administered by Advertising Standards Canada, the program asks participants to rethink their approaches to marketing products to children under the age of 12.
Rather than promoting junk food, participants are asked to market only products that are more in keeping with the principles of good nutrition: those lower in total calories, fats, salts and added sugars, and higher in nutrients. Importantly, the initiative applies to online and mobile forums, as well as to conventional television broadcasting.
The other check in our system is advertising preclearance, a service performed by Advertising Standards Canada that is mandatory for all advertising aimed at children. Through it, a committee is tasked with reviewing all broadcast and print children's advertising to ensure that content meets specific mandatory and guideline criteria. I should add that my colleague, Mr. Kachi, is a member of this committee.
Such measures are working. As you know, the CRTC collects and addresses complaints made by Canadians about the appropriateness of content aired by broadcasters. In 2014-15, we received over 2,800 complaints related to television programming. Of those, only 30 — or less than 1 per cent of the complaints — concerned advertising directed at children. Importantly, none of those related to junk food, or any other types of products commonly associated with childhood obesity.
Honourable senators, I understand that one of the measures your committee is considering is whether television advertising to children should be banned. If I may, I would like to share my thoughts with you on the future of the television industry. My insight may help guide your recommendations.
You may have heard of the work being done by the CRTC through our Let's Talk TV conversation. In it, we asked Canadians about the future of television: how they connect with content, in particular. The conversation revealed many important ideas, none more so than the fact that Canadians value television, but the way in which they interact with it is changing.
Viewers are migrating to watching content on non-traditional platforms that many of us in this room would never have imagined possible 10 years ago. Rather than sitting down to watch television in their living rooms during prime time or in the late-night time slot, they watch anything they want on their phones, their tablets and their computers — and at times of the day that suit them best, rather than on schedules and in sequences arranged by broadcasters. In today's television age, content is abundant. It is everywhere and available to anyone whenever he or she wants.
[English]
Young people, more so than older Canadians, are at the forefront of such change. Statistics from Canada's Media Technology Monitor study confirm my point. Honourable senators, nearly 60 per cent of anglophones with a child at home own a tablet computer; more than 80 per cent own smartphones; better than one in four Canadian families own four screens that can access the Internet; more than three in four Canadians with kids own a game console that connects to the Internet; and, among those families that subscribe to online video-on-demand services, the children are the primary users of those accounts.
The youth are those who adopt and embrace new technologies more readily than those of us who might be set in our ways. They are the ones for whom conventional models of television consumption appear tired and outdated. They are the ones for whom all of us in the television industry — creators, producers, distributors, advertisers and, yes, even us regulators — must adapt our service strategies. Because this is key — and it is key — tools such as broadcast quotas and genre protection that worked well in the past, in yesterday's television era where viewers consumed content in a linear fashion — that is, on set schedules and conventional channels — do not work nearly as well in the on-demand age where content is abundance and available to anyone at any time of day and on any platform.
In the digital world, Canadians, and children in particular, are well served through digital literacy and education tools. Consider, for example, the work of MediaSmarts, an independent organization that helps parents, teens and children develop and enhance the critical thinking skills they use when interacting with media.
In the television world of the future, and in today's television world, empowering Canadians, young and old, with the skills they need to be responsible media consumers is an important goal.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Before I open the floor, I remind my colleagues we have two sessions today. This session will end no later than 11:30, and the one-question-per-senator-per-round rule is in effect.
With that, I will begin the questioning starting with Senator Eggleton, the deputy chair.
Senator Eggleton: Thank you very much. You correctly point out that young people have graduated beyond the television set in the home to other platforms, and that is where a lot of the exposure will now likely come to them. I take it that is not an area that you cannot control.
Notwithstanding that, Quebec has put a ban on all advertising directed to children under 13, regardless of whether it's broadcast, on billboards or wherever it might be.
Do you have any familiarity with how they enforce this? Do you have any information as to how it is succeeding, and how they might be able to deal with the question of online advertising?
Mr. Hutton: The system that we put in place operates in conjunction with the Quebec system. We do not involve ourselves in monitoring or enforcing the provincial law in that case.
As explained in our opening statement, we work with standards. We work with conditions of licence that impose the standards that we put in place upon broadcasters to ensure that they respect the obligations that we put upon them.
We also try to go above and beyond that and work with various committees and the industry to try to ensure that those standards or like standards are applied to other forms of media such as those that we do not regulate. We cooperate on that front.
The difficulty going forward — and it is not just a difficulty in respect of these particular issues, it is basically with everything the CRTC is doing and I suspect that the provincial government will have the same issues as we do going forward — is that content is coming in from everywhere. With the behavioural changes that technology has permitted and that consumers have adopted, namely of getting content on multiple platforms that are mostly unregulated — whether we are viewing it for Canadian content or not — building walls to have protection around the systems that we have in place will not work in the future. We are trying to work, for example with Canadian content, on discoverability. That is, how can Canadians find quality Canadian content, quality children's programming, in the new digital world on the Internet?
It is in that vein that we are also suggesting from our remarks here that we should be working on promoting good ideas, promoting healthy eating and promoting proper advertising to everyone as much as possible, as opposed to using the old methods that are essentially building walls around what we do here in Canada.
The Chair: We are only allowed one question, but the senator asked you a specific question. I take it from your reply that your answer is no, you don't know how well it is succeeding; is that correct?
Mr. Hutton: We don't know how well their enforcement measures are succeeding.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Seidman: Mr. Hutton, in your presentation, you referred to standards a lot. I would like to ask you about these standards. You talked about Advertising Standards Canada as one system; you then talked about advertising preclearance and suggested that it is a kind of oversight that ensures content meets specific mandatory and guideline criteria.
What are we talking about here? What are these mandatory and guideline criteria? How, exactly, is it overseen? Is there a way to do checks to see if this actually happens? If you could help me try to understand that, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Hutton: The commission has adopted, in many of its operations, certainly those when you relate to issues of appropriateness of content or, as the Broadcasting Act requires, a high standard of content. We work with the industry in a co-regulation form. Sometimes it's described as "self-regulation,'' but it isn't exactly self-regulation. The commission is always there. The commission imposes these codes that are developed with the industry. It also approves them in many instances. We work with the industry to come up with codes, principles and guidelines. We then impose those principles and guidelines through conditions of licence on Canadian broadcasters.
Ultimately, we ask the associations, whether it is the Canadian Association of Broadcasters or Advertising Standards Canada, to help develop them. Then we look to trust a third party to administer them on a day-to-day basis. As Mr. Kachi can explain, we also participate in many instances with those associations in the day-to-day management.
We trust the industry to co-regulate itself and to work out best situations. If there are issues that arise, they always come back to the commission. The commission has final say and can impose further conditions or restrictions, or require improvements to those conditions through its own motions.
Senator Seidman: You answered part of my question, but you didn't ask the other part of the question, namely, what are the criteria?
Mr. Hutton: I will let Mr. Kachi answer that portion.
Senator Seidman: I would appreciate that.
Nanao Kachi, Director, Social and Consumer Policy, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission: There is the Broadcast Code for Advertising to Children. Some version of this code has been in place since 1974. As Mr. Hutton stated, it is adhered to as a condition of licence by broadcasters. They have agreed to a number of principles, one of which is a voluntary limit on advertising to eight minutes per hour within children's programming.
The code deals with a number of issues, such as factual presentation of information. There are also product prohibitions with respect to children's advertising, such as the advertising of drugs or products not intended for children. In addition, there is avoiding undue pressure — pressure selling to children — and scheduling. For instance, you can only schedule one commercial per half hour that is specific to a product. Again, that is to ensure that the pressure to buy something is not imposed upon the child.
You have restrictions on how well-known figures, puppets or characters, can be used to promote a product. There is also clarity in price and purchase terms. They deal with comparison claims as well as safety, so that in the ad directed to a child you can't portray a non-safe environment or activity.
The last one is about social values. That is ensuring that the ad demonstrates values that are consistent with Canadian contemporary society. That is the Broadcast Code for Advertising to Children.
Within that code, specifically to what you are looking at here today about advertising to children with respect to food and obesity, advertising with respect to food is dealt with through the Food and Drugs Act, as well as the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's Guide to Food Labelling and Advertising. The advertising code that we have put in place ensures that all advertising is consistent with those two pieces, namely, the guide and the Food and Drugs Act.
It's a regulatory framework that's designed to ensure that advertising does not present food in a manner that is false, misleading or deceptive, and is likely to create an erroneous impression regarding the character, value, quality or nutritional value of the food. These pieces work together to ensure that the advertising to children meets these standards.
As Mr. Hutton noted, there is also the Clearance Committee, of which I am a member. Advertising Standards Canada, who I believe is speaking to you after our presentation, would be able to provide you with a detailed explanation of how that Children's Clearance Committee works.
Senator Seidman: Thank you.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Thank you for your presentations.
I am a bit skeptical, I have to say, of the industry setting its own standards. As you know, with the industry setting its own standards, they are after advertising money, et cetera. I am not saying that it is a bad thing, but I don't know how that goes along.
I am most interested in how often you review your standards and redo the standards as necessitated. Apparently the code was put in place in 1978, so I would be interested in hearing about your reviews of it.
Mr. Kachi: The code has been in place, and it has gone through some iterations and various reviews. The code sets up basic principles which apply back when it first started in the seventies to today.
Advertising Standards Canada takes that code and, as new situations arise, it creates an interpretation for the code so that the industry understands, for instance, apps and app stores and how that reality fits within the principles that are outlined in the code.
We base our determination as to whether or not the code needs to be reviewed on input from Canadians. When we monitor complaints about advertising to children, and specifically about advertising junk food to children, we basically have no complaints. Advertising Standards Canada also takes in complaints and monitors complaints, and they also have no substantial complaints with respect to junk-food advertising.
We take that as a sign that the system that we've put in place, if a co-regulatory situation is working, then at this moment the commission doesn't need to take any further regulatory action. If we have evidence in front of us that indicates there needs to be a change, obviously we would review those standards.
We are in conversation with Advertising Standards Canada to ensure that there is a consistent understanding between the two organizations. If there is a problem, then we would address it.
Senator Raine: Following along on this same topic, what is Advertising Standards Canada? Is this a non-profit society, a government agency? Is it funded by industry?
The Chair: Senator, they are meeting with us next. You can ask them directly.
Senator Raine: I would like to do it now so that I can make my next question more reasonable. I don't understand what it is.
The Chair: I will allow a brief explanation.
Mr. Kachi: Advertising Standards Canada is the regulatory body established by the industry. They are in a much better position, obviously, to explain how they are funded, but there are fees with respect to the clearance committees.
When an advertiser comes to Advertising Standards Canada to have their advertisements reviewed, there is a fee associated with that. It is a matter of that type of mechanism, from my understanding.
I deal with them from a policy position, as well as being a member on their clearance committee.
Senator Wells: Thank you very much, gentlemen, for appearing.
Part of your commitment — I won't say part of your mandate — is related to unhealthy food behaviours, as you mentioned in your presentation, with respect to principles of good nutrition. I understand that as well.
I would like to know if the advertisers are compelled or if these guides and principles to which they agree and are made of conditions of licence, are they are pre-approved or is it a complaints-based process? Are there any penalties if they are found to be outside of the condition of licence?
Mr. Kachi: To clarify, the conditions of licence are placed on the broadcasters. If they are found to be in non-compliance with one of the various codes and that there seems to be a systemic issue with respect to non-compliance with the codes, the commission can investigate that licence renewal or, depending on the egregiousness of the non-compliance, call them to a hearing to discuss the non-compliance. The commission has various tools to apply in those situations, whether it is further monitoring or changing of licence terms. Those types of tools are available to the commission, but we would be able to engage them in that conversation.
Senator Wells: Are there instances of penalties given, or is it a discussion-based solution issue?
Mr. Hutton: The commission does not have the authority to issue administrative monetary penalties, so there are none.
Senator Nancy Ruth: In terms of the codes related to food or drink, do you have repeat offenders? How many issues would come to you over a year, and are they repeated? Do the same companies come up?
Mr. Kachi: We are not aware of any repeat offenders. This past year, the stats that we have, we received no complaints with respect to this type of complaint.
Senator Enverga: Thank you for your presentation. Mr. Kachi, you mentioned earlier that you are basing the decision on advertising form — what kinds of advertising standards they are — with regard to contemporary Canadians.
Can you tell me more about "contemporary Canadians?'' How contemporary is it going to be? Is it the eighties or the nineties? There are different standards as we go along, right?
Mr. Kachi: Again, that last standard is meant to provide ourselves and the administrator of the code flexibility to allow the code to be adapted for changes in societal values. For instance, since the seventies, knowledge about the hazards of smoking and the various nutritional elements of food have changed. It allows for that progression and allows the code to stay relevant within its context.
One of the changes that was put in place was in 2004. There was an interpretation with respect to advertising to children with respect to food, which then reflected the framework that I referred to with respect to the Food and Drugs Act, as well as the CFIA's guidelines with respect to the labelling and advertising of food.
Mr. Hutton: I think it is sort of a catch-all at the end of the code, and it is meant to allow the code to evolve to address new issues, so "contemporary'' should be now.
As Mr. Kachi mentioned, there are issues with respect to advertising on the famous apps on everyone's phone. That's how the code empowers the co-regulatory bodies to intervene in those new areas.
Senator Enverga: There were the previous models, but at this time you have adjusted to a certain norm among society? Is that this how you are dealing with this advertising?
Mr. Kachi: As I was saying, Advertising Standards Canada, from time to time, provides the advertisers with direction with respect to any number of issues that may have arisen as a result of changes in technology or other changes in society. As Mr. Hutton eloquently described, it is a sort of catch-all to allow that code to be forward-moving.
Senator Enverga: So it deals more with technology.
Senator Frum: You made the point, and rightly so, that kids above a certain age are spending much more time on Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat. They are looking at pop-up ads from Google.
I'm just unclear. The CRTC can't capture, or can they, what goes on in those spaces?
Mr. Hutton: The CRTC, inasmuch as what we're doing here under the Broadcasting Act, captures in broadcasting, so we'll capture broadcasting on all platforms. However, there are a number of platforms that don't essentially qualify as broadcasting, so we don't regulate your Facebook page. We don't regulate other forms of digital social media.
Senator Frum: Is there any regulation?
Mr. Hutton: No. That's the point, and that's why we're making the point that we need to work collectively on engaging citizens, teaching them about advertising, teaching them about being digital savvy and that is our message, even as we are looking at other forms of our interventions. Restrictions don't seem to work as well as in the past. We need to educate and get the proper messages out.
The Chair: I want to follow up on the question that Senator Eggleton raised, which ties in with Senator Frum's question, and you responded indicating the difficulty of introducing messages with regard to various issues, particularly for children, given the breadth and range of media access that exists and the platforms on which messages are delivered.
To come to this issue, you've touched on perhaps the role that you would play, but is there another mechanism that should be used to address the consumer, in this case children, with regard to food issues and so on? If so, are there agencies that you think should be delivering on new platforms messages directly into that area to counter arguments that perhaps those agencies feel are not leading to the healthiest information for families and children?
Mr. Hutton: Certainly what we can say is that we're the broadcasting experts. As Nanao indicated, we work with ensuring broadcasts respects, for example, the health regulations and the laws administered by Health Canada. We work together on that front.
Certainly we're looking at new forms of media and we're encouraging all our broadcasters, our producers of Canadian content — and I think this message goes to anyone who is trying to get a message out there — because technology permitted Canadians to move to consuming product on a number of different platforms. It's not to underestimate the impact of television and traditional broadcasting because that's still strong, but as we're looking forward over the next 5 to 10 years that will certainly reduce its impact and Canadians will be on different platforms.
We are trying to modify our own rules and regulations to ensure that we're not impeding developments on those platforms, but seeing what tools and mechanisms can be put in place, which may not be regulatory, which may be in the vein of what we're doing here, promoting education and joining with other partners who are promoting education and discovery of new content. That's one of the message we're trying to get out there. Our recommendation to everyone is that you have to be on these new platforms. You have to take the chance to explore these new areas.
We are also doing that through our own means of communications. We are trying to be at the forefront of adopting Facebook and adopting different platforms such as Twitter to get our own messages out and experimenting in our own operations with other platforms, be it Snapchat, Meerkat and other forms of digital media.
My recommendation in that sense is, certainly speaking of issues of important to young Canadians, the impact of media we know is first and foremost and can have a huge impact. It's to use all these forms of media to get your messages out.
Senator Eggleton: One of the controversial product classes we've been hearing about are sugary drinks. You, in terms of your regulatory authority, ban sugary drinks, and how do you define what you consider to be a sugary drink?
Mr. Kachi: Advertising Standards Canada would be in the best position to be able to explain how that interpretation works.
Senator Eggleton: Do you accept their interpretation?
Mr. Kachi: Advertising with respect to food falls under the Food and Drugs Act, as well as the CFIA's guide to labelling and advertising of food. The children's advertising code ensures that all advertising respects those two elements.
I cannot speak to how those acts define sugary drinks. That's under the purview of Health Canada and their experts to define and ensure that that works.
Advertising Standards Canada, if it needs to, will set out an interpretation if there is some ambiguity, but they will do that in consultation with the experts who have established that framework.
We deal with the broadcasting side of the house, which is whether or not the broadcasters are adhering to the various codes. For that technical "what is a sugary drink,'' I would leave that to the experts at Health Canada to answer that question, respectfully.
Senator Seidman: If I go back to your presentation, Mr. Hutton, you said that although the CRTC does not directly regulate advertising content, you do intervene when it comes to basic standards for advertising aimed at Canadians aged 12 years and younger.
I'm still trying to understand how you intervene. For example, do you have the capacity to enforce an advertising ban? Would you do such a thing? I'm trying to understand exactly how you police these standards and what you actually can do.
Mr. Hutton: We regulate broadcasters so how we police it is through the broadcasters' conduct. If there is a breach to one of the codes, the broadcaster is ultimately responsible for the advertisement. Even if there is a third-party advertisement, we hold the broadcaster responsible through the issuance of the licence and through imposing conditions of licenses.
If there is a breach to one of the codes, and if there is, for example, a ban ultimately put in place, we ensure that their broadcasts remain lawful and so, if there is a ban in place, we would be there to enforce that ban accordingly.
If a code is breached or a rule is breached, we would call the offending broadcaster in and ensure and have a discussion with them to understand why it happened, to ensure that they understand there is a problem and that there has been a breach, and to review with them mechanisms that they can put in place to ensure that their conduct is corrected.
We also have a number of sanctions at our disposal and other measures. We can require them to report more often exactly on those latter mechanisms that they put in place to ensure they don't breach the codes or a rule going forward. We can certainly tighten or heighten our supervision by imposing additional conditions of licence that certainly require them to pay more attention to this particular issue.
We can issue short-term licenses which require the broadcasters to come back more often in front of us and, ultimately, we can go to the courts for issuance of mandatory orders to impose proper conduct on a broadcaster.
The last measure, if one continues to be recalcitrant, is that we can essentially revoke one's licence or not renew that licence.
Senator Seidman: Could I clarify something?
The Chair: Yes. This is an important thing. With regard to the authority that they have to actually deal with —
Senator Seidman: Exactly.
The Chair: It sounded to me like the heaviest penalty is the ability to revoke the licence. Is that correct?
Mr. Hutton: That's what we refer to as the death penalty for a broadcaster.
Senator Seidman: Has it ever happened?
Mr. Hutton: Yes, we have revoked licenses, sadly, for a number of occasions over the last number of years.
The Chair: I am coming back to Senator Seidman to make sure she's clear on this.
Senator Seidman: I appreciate that.
I understand you can revoke a licence. You don't set the rules, but you enforce the rules. That's what you're trying to emphasize to us. So, if Health Canada, for example, were to decide that a certain product would be banned for advertising to children, you would have the capacity to enforce that ban. Is that correct?
Mr. Hutton: Most definitely.
Senator Raine: I must say it has been very good for us to hear from you. I'd like to go back, if you don't mind, and ask how the age limit was set at 12 years way back when, and is it possible to change that age limit?
For instance, Mr. Kachi said you can't portray a non-safe activity, but there's no doubt in my mind that teenagers are being advertised to by high energy drinks to jump off cliffs on their skis. I would consider that kind of advertising to be very exciting. Maybe it's not in Canada, but I'm just wondering about the age limit.
I personally think 16 and under, in terms of dealing with some of these things that are bringing a rise to obesity in Canada, would be a better age limit. Can you talk about the age limit?
Mr. Hutton: For the age, with respect to how we look at programming, there's a first tranche of preschool, which is up to about 6 years. We consider the next tranche, which includes the first tranche, as all children to be set at 12.
We note, for example, that the Quebec government, with the ban that was mentioned, set the age at 13. Why did we pick 12 in lieu of 13? The broadcasting industry measurements and systems put in place have been using 12. For example, everything is measured on folks who are under 12. So it does make it simpler for the administration on the question of 12 versus 13, because we then know what is a program. We know we can actually measure our children watching that program. That's also something that is used to determine if the program is actually aimed at young people, for example.
Those ages are set in regulation and other codes, and can all be modified or changed.
Senator Stewart Olsen: As a brief follow-up to my earlier questions on revising the standards or the codes, you say you really didn't look at it because you had no complaints.
With Quebec, when a whole province takes a step forward to say, "We're going to ban advertising to children under 13,'' would that not, in your mind, trigger a question that perhaps you should be looking at it? In a sense, it's a type of complaint.
Mr. Hutton: For example, at the time when that ban was put in place, certainly there were discussions about the ban, how we would be able to interact with it and the questions. The code was put in place in the 1970s, but it has evolved over time, and we have certainly questioned that.
The conclusion of the commission was that it preferred to operate in this co-regulatory manner, which would not involve an outright ban but instead impose appropriate standards and conduct, because in part we do believe in the power of media. Advertising can also promote good behaviour, proper food consumption, et cetera. So an outright ban on absolutely everything certainly didn't seem to be, in our view, the way to go.
The Chair: Before going to the third round, I wanted to follow up on one of the comments you made in your presentation. It is the observation that you get very few complaints about advertising — you used the term "junk-food category'' in there — and I think you interpret that as meaning perhaps the approach to this advertising is successful.
I doubt very much that Canadians in general consider this aspect to be one of the great world crises issues of today. We know, for example, even with regard to adverse drug reactions, that Canadians find it very difficult to put in observations about an adverse response that they have. We know; we've studied that in detail.
We also know the ability to provide feedback on things is not as easy as we think it is, and certainly to do it electronically.
I would like your comments on how you interpret the fact that there isn't an outbreak of complaints from harried parents with regard to the "junk-food issue'' as a meaningful way of determining that the advertising is working in this area.
Mr. Hutton: Upwards of 45,000 Canadians reach out to the CRTC on an annual basis to form an inquiry or a complaint on the matters we regulate. We also have many instances. It is a priority of our chairman, Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais, to ensure access to the CRTC and that Canadians understand what the CRTC does so we can hear from them, adapt and change our policies accordingly.
In this particular case, we have to be mindful that there is a robust system of co-regulation in place. There is preclearance of ads according to those standards. Those are updated from time to time through information bulletins and interpretation bulletins and, as mentioned earlier, we certainly enforce those codes and various bans that may be put in place by the proper health authorities.
There is a robust area. With the confidence of knowing that there is a robust system, that it is updated on a regular basis, that we hear about it and that those groups are also working with respect to ensuring that proper messages are being broadcast, that education is being provided to Canadians, plus the fact that we have few complaints — that's where we're coming from to reach the conclusion that I think we're doing well on this front.
The Chair: I appreciate your answer. You mentioned roughly 45,000 complaints. Could you break that down a bit in terms of categories? For example, what percentage of them would be complaints with regard to any kind of product and is there a product that stands out? Would they be with regard to the actual content of programs that are being broadcast? What general area do those complaints fall within?
Mr. Hutton: Of the 45,000 complaints — we do regulate both a number of acts and obligations — roughly about half of those relate to broadcasting. We can get you further details as to the other issues, because we do review these every week with our chairman. The top five areas: Certainly, the loudness of advertising comes front and centre. Issues with respect to, as we've highlighted, being able to choose channels and so on are another one. Billing practices and billing issues are certainly up there, and it goes down to different levels.
We have about about 2,800 that relate to programming, what is actually aired, and, looking at those that are actually aired, again, offensive comments is likely the one with the highest number on that front. I'm looking at journalistic practices coming up from time to time, and issues with respect to accessibility, such as closed captioning.
The Chair: I get the drift. I guess the issue is, when you consider that probably 100 per cent of Canadians deal with media in one form or another, a total of 45,000 complaints. I'm not suggesting you're not doing a good job; I'm not using this as a means of evaluating your success overall. I think it gives us a sense of how eager Canadians are to complain about issues in broadcasting. I'll just leave it at that.
Senator Eggleton: I'm going to go back to sugary drinks because you've told me the process, the Health Canada involvement, but you haven't really told me what the bottom line is in terms of this collaborative effort, these different committees, the preclearance, children's clearance committee, et cetera. You're participating in this. You said that you're concerned about obesity, so what are you doing about sugary drinks in that context? Don't tell me the process. Tell me what you're really doing about it. It's considered to be one of the things that contributes enormously to obesity.
Mr. Kachi: From a CRTC perspective, what we're doing about the issue of sugary drinks is ensuring that the broadcast of advertising and the way that that advertising is constructed and presented to children respects the rules and the norms that have been put into place by Health Canada
Senator Eggleton: And what's that?
Mr. Kachi: I can't speak, with any detail, with respect to those norms because they fall within the Food and Drugs Act, as well as labelling and advertising rules set up by CFIA.
Senator Eggleton: Which essentially means that, if it's not illegal, you don't have any problem with it.
Mr. Hutton: I don't think so. The codes and the other educational activities that have been put in place by various groups, such as MediaSmarts, that we support and receive and collaborate with, are to ensure that the marketing of those drinks, first of all, is not deceptive, that there are not health benefits associated with them and that also, more and more, as one promotes food and beverage products, the promotion of those products highlights and is concentrated around food and beverage products that are, in fact, healthy and that do, in fact, respect of the guidelines for proper living and proper consumption put forward by Health Canada.
There are two sides to what we do. It is enforcement so that you're not deceptive, that you are advertising in accordance with the standards as they are set; and we go further and work with these groups to promote their activities, which themselves promote healthy living.
Senator Seidman: Do you do any work on best practices and look at international standards, other countries, what they're doing? If you do that kind of thing, would you make recommendations to help in developing changing standards, for example?
Mr. Hutton: We do look, in all of our businesses, at what is happening elsewhere, and we do have an international team that studies what is going on on a variety of fronts, including matters related to social and consumer well-being.
We are also consulted, in light of the mechanisms that we have put in place, by international bodies that come to see us because our system in Canada is one of the well-recognized and very mature systems that has been put in place on that front.
Recommendations: A little bit as to how the system works here is that you must constantly update yourself and constantly be able to have a system that adapts to the new realities. So, all of our codes, whether they be food and drug and forms of advertising or our codes with respect to other important issues, such as abusive comments, are constantly updated and interpreted by Canadians who participate in these co-regulatory bodies. It's not government doing it. It is Canadians doing it, and it is Canadians who are participating in those bodies who end up updating it.
As we speak to other countries when they come to visit us, the magic of our system is that it is something that we work on with industry, with Canadians and with government in order to implement it and keep it up-to-date. That's something that we often refer to in our discussion with other countries.
Senator Raine: Thank you. You say you work with Health Canada. They basically provide you with guidance as to what should be in the code, but you also work with Canadians who sit on the advisory boards and with industry.
If Health Canada said, "We are determining that we do not want advertising and marketing of a category of product,'' then would you be in a position to enforce that, or would you then run it by your committee and be turned down by industry?
Mr. Hutton: No. As with the other bans that are in place, for example, tobacco, that is put in place through Health Canada regulations, and that is in force and nonnegotiable.
Senator Raine: With regard to that, then, Health Canada's job is to come up with a very specific description of what they want banned.
Mr. Hutton: As the CRTC does in its own area of specialty, they will put in place, certainly according to their own authorities, regulations, and those regulations will specify. A regulation has to provide a definition; a regulation has to indicate who it applies to; and it has to have a descriptive text that is understandable by all that is then implemented.
We work with them to ensure through our codes. First and foremost, not even related to these but to some of our other codes and conditions of licence and even the Broadcasting Act, what you broadcast must be lawful. So if something is not lawful to be broadcast, it stops there.
The Chair: Thank you for appearing. It has been a very good discussion. You have been very clear in your answers.
In this session, we have, from Advertising Standards Canada, Janet Feasby, Vice-president, Standards; and, from the Association of Canadian Advertisers, Ron Lund, President and CEO.
Ms. Feasby, you are listed first, so I will call upon you first.
Janet Feasby, Vice-president, Standards, Advertising Standards Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and my thanks to the committee members for inviting Advertising Standards Canada to present to you today.
You have asked us to speak about advertising best practices. I will approach this topic from two perspectives. The first relates to Advertising Standards Canada's role in administering the framework for regulating children's advertising in Canada; the second is the Canadian Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative.
Founded in 1957, Advertising Standards Canada is the independent national not-for-profit advertising industry self-regulatory body. For more than 50 years, we have set and maintained a code of responsible standards for advertising and administered an important process to accept and adjudicate consumers' complaints about advertising. More information about ASC can be found in our annual report, which I believe that you have been given.
ASC is not an advocacy body. Our role is to assist advertisers in adhering to the advertising laws and codes that exist in Canada and to respond to consumer complaints about ads through the self-regulatory Canadian Code of Advertising Standards.
The Canadian regulatory framework for advertising to children is unique in the world. It deals with the content of advertising. The Broadcast Code for Advertising to Children strictly regulates what can and cannot be said or shown in children's advertising, outside of Quebec. It also contains guidelines specific to food commercials. All broadcast advertising directed to children under 12 years of age must conform to the Children's Code as a condition of the broadcast license issued by the CRTC, as you heard earlier.
Commercials directed to children, under 12 years of age, must first be precleared by ASC's Children's Clearance Committee before a broadcaster will accept them for airing. The committee includes advertisers, parents of children under 12 and broadcasters. The CRTC also participates. In addition, all food commercials undergo a separate technical review by ASC to ensure that they comply with the Food and Drugs Act regulations and guidelines.
In terms of non-broadcast advertising, ASC's Canadian Code of Advertising Standards provides a rigorous system for responding to consumer complaints about advertising in all media. It also contains special provisions regarding advertising to children and food advertising.
Let's turn to what can be advertised to children. In addition to the regulatory framework is a voluntary initiative, Canadian Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative, or the Children's Advertising Initiative for short. It was launched in 2007 by leading Canadian food and beverage advertisers who believed that they could make a meaningful contribution to support the health and well-being of Canadian children.
There are 18 members that have committed to the following principles for advertising to children under 12: to devote 100 per cent of their advertising to promote products that represent healthier dietary choices or to not direct any advertising to children; to incorporate only products that are healthier dietary choices in interactive games; reduce the use of third-party licensed characters in advertising; not place food and beverage products in programs or in editorial content of any medium particularly directed to children; and, finally, not advertise food or beverage products in elementary schools.
More information can be found in the most recent compliance report, which you have. The ASC administers that program.
It is important to note that the media covered under the program go beyond traditional media. It includes television, print, online, video and computer games that are rated Early Childhood, DVDs and G-rated rated movies, mobile media and word of mouth.
The Children's Advertising Initiative has evolved considerably since its inception. In 2010, the covered media were expanded beyond traditional media. Most recently, in 2014, the companies adopted strict uniform category-specific nutrition criteria for the foods and beverages that can be advertised to children under the program. These requirements are more stringent than the previous criteria and will be fully implemented by the end of 2015. We estimate that more than one third of the products currently advertised under the program will have to be reformulated, or no longer be advertised to children after that date.
The goal of the Children's Advertising Initiative is to shift the emphasis in advertising to the promotion of foods and beverages that are consistent with the principles of sound nutritional guidance. Since the program was launched, companies have reformulated products advertised to children to include whole grains and to reduce sodium and sugar.
Through the program, the landscape for children's advertising has changed significantly, as shown in a comparative study that ASC did of ads before and after the launch. The content of advertising of stations having the highest audience of children age 2 to 11 in 2004 showed that only 63 per cent of the food and beverages advertised to children were healthier dietary choices. By 2008, more than 95 per cent of the products were. In ASC's latest snapshot of children's television commercials, 99 per cent of the advertised products were better-for-you products, sponsored by members of the initiative. Over the past seven years, the program has evolved and improved and will continue to do so.
In closing, I will summarize by saying that Canada's robust regulatory and self-regulatory framework for advertising to children, together with the Children's Advertising Initiative, represent best practices in advertising to children.
Thank you.
Ron Lund, President and CEO, Association of Canadian Advertisers: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning, senators. At your request, we are pleased to have this opportunity to participate and comment on your committee's study on the increasing incidence of obesity in Canada. My name is Ron Lund, President and CEO of the Association of Canadian Advertisers. Five minutes is short, so I will talk quickly.
Founded in 1914, the Association of Canadian Advertisers is a not-for-profit national organization solely dedicated to representing companies that market and advertise their products and services in Canada. We act as an adviser, advocate and resource for our members, more than 200 companies and divisions that collectively that account for estimated sales of over $300 billion.
As a general philosophy and position, ACA believes in universal access and choice and that all media should permit and, indeed, would benefit from commercial advertising. Importantly, this is balanced also by our belief that the right to advertise freely in Canada comes with an obligation to do so truthfully, accurately and responsibly.
ACA is a very strong supporter of the excellent self-regulatory regime that we have in Canada. Advertising to children in Canada is an area of marketing communications that ACA and the Canadian industry treat with the highest regard, standards and accountability. Canada is heralded around the world as having one of the most comprehensive and complete system of codes and standards for responsible advertising to children. The system has four key components, many of which you have already heard about.
The first is the Broadcast Code for Advertising to Children, under the auspices of the CRTC, which sets out in very specific terms what is allowed and what is not allowed when speaking to children.
The second is the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards, which you heard just about from Janet. I won't go into that now.
The third is Companies Committed to Kids, which has been producing and delivering social messaging campaigns on issues of challenge to children's lives, including media literacy and healthy, active living.
The fourth one is the Canadian Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative, again a voluntary initiative by 18 of Canada's leading food and beverage companies. Again, you have heard a lot on that, so I will keep motoring on through.
However, childhood obesity is a complex issue. ACA agrees childhood obesity is a serious issue, but it's also an extremely complex issue, with many factors to be taken into account such as level of physical activity, food intake, household income, social environment, physical environment, geographical location, cultural, biological and genetic factors, services for health, and so on.
I have appended to the back of your presentation a Foresight map, which talks about those factors. The Foresight report was a report to the U.K. government in 2007 to inform them on the obesity issue. There are 107 influential factors and, yes, exposure to food advertising is one of those.
Marketing restrictions also do not fix health problems. Many witnesses throughout these deliberations will have suggested the restriction or banning of advertising to children is, in fact, a solution. However, evidence suggests that there is absolutely no correlation between the number of ads viewed, ad spend and obesity.
In the number of jurisdictions where child ad bans or restrictions have been put in place for some time and where children have been exposed to significantly less marketing communications, the incidence of childhood overweight or obesity is equal to or higher than the adjoining jurisdictions with no marketing restrictions in place.
You have heard from many witnesses that imitating the Quebec ban would be a solution, but let's examine the facts. Yes, Quebec has had a ban for over 30 years now, but the childhood obesity rate is the same as in B.C. where there is no ban. By comparison, Alberta, where there is no ban in place, has the lowest combined rates of overweight and obesity in Canada.
Furthermore, since the ban went into place, the combined rates of overweight and obesity in 1981 to 2004 specifically in Quebec has doubled. That is right, it doubled during the ban. These figures are from the 2004 Canadian Community Health Survey and they are actual child measurements, not self-reported weights.
This view is also supported by the 2010 Australian 222-page report entitled Childhood Obesity: An Economic Perspective by the Australian government's Productivity Commission. This reputable and influential research agency advises the Australian government on a range of economic, social and environmental policy areas and is acknowledged as one of the quite impartial and independent bodies that it deals with. This report concludes that restricting advertising on food and beverage products would ultimately be ineffective.
Regrettably, there is no quick fix or solution to obesity. Obesity is a multifactorial issue requiring complex solutions. The industry understands the challenge and has stepped up to the plate, supporting both regulatory and self-regulatory frameworks, as well as voluntary initiatives such as the Children's Advertising Initiative. Fundamental change is taking place in the food industry and we are beginning to see tangible results.
It is important to keep in mind the World Health Organization's recommendation on the issue. Quite sensibly, it was to reduce the impact on children of marketing of foods high in saturated fats, trans fatty acids, free sugars and salt. The recommendation was to reduce, not to eliminate. Our industry feels it has certainly done that with our improved regulation of advertising to children and with the Children's Advertising Initiative.
It is always important to remember that WHO recommended specifically that self-regulation played an important role in this objective. Again, if you are interested, you can find that reference in paragraph 22 of their recommendations. Again, we have been part of the solution and are proud of that.
In summary, a holistic response is required for this serious problem. We all have a part to play. Our industry has been very active in this area for many years and we are proud of our efforts. We are committed to taking and promoting a responsible approach to advertising to children, with additional voluntary efforts for food and beverage advertising. Advertising bans are simplistic and miss the mark. Regulation should be able to achieve the stated public policy objectives without imposing unnecessary or disproportionate regulatory burdens. Companies are responding. It is important that media literacy campaigns continue to better equip children with the skills needed to interact in a modern, commercial world. More than anything, there also needs to be some degree of proportionality in this debate.
Senators, thank you for the opportunity to be heard. I wish your committee well in your deliberations and thank you for the opportunity for me to contribute.
The Chair: Thank you both very much. Before I open the floor to questions, I will remind my colleagues that this session will end no later than 12:30, and one-question-per-senator-per-round rule is in effect.
Senator Eggleton: Thank you for your presentations. I am interested in the statistics that you have given us, saying that you are up to 99 per cent "better-for-you'' food and beverage products being now advertised. You pointed out that the companies have decided to change some of the specific nutrition criteria for foods and that these will be in effect by the end of 2015.
I am interested in that context about the item I was raising with the CRTC. Sugary drinks are often cited in the testimony given here as being a big part of the problem of creating obesity. How do you deal with sugary drinks now? How would you, with the specific nutrition criteria changes, deal with them after that?
Ms. Feasby: The companies participating in the Children's Advertising Initiative do not advertise sugary drinks to children under 12, do not advertise soft drinks. That is the current situation, and it will continue to be the situation with the new criteria.
Senator Eggleton: Does that apply to different platforms, or just broadcasting?
Ms. Feasby: Advertising in the media that I mentioned — the online, television and digital. Yes, the media covered under the program.
Senator Seidman: In the ASC's 2013 compliance report that you referred to, Ms. Feasby, and which was provided to us in one of your submissions, there is a list of advertised products for 2013. The first item on the list is from a fast food company whose name I will leave out of my question. It lists a kid's meal consisting of four pieces of chicken tenders, Mott's Fruitsations apple sauce and Oasis apple juice.
Given what we have heard in testimony here about, for example, fruit juice and things that appear to be pure fruit but are really pure sugar, how might this respond to the so-called healthy eating standards?
If I look through the document, I see Fruit Loops cereal, Frosted Flakes cereal, Rice Krispies squares, Pepperidge Farm Goldfish baked snack crackers, chocolate. These are the list of advertised products in 2013 that are supposed to subscribe to healthy eating.
Ms. Feasby: If you look in that report on page 4, the nutrition criteria under the program when it was first conceived, if the product met one or more of the criteria set out on page 4, for example:
foods that reflect the dietary guidelines of Canada's Food Guide;
foods that meet criteria for disease risk reduction claims, function claims . . . as per CFIA's Food Labelling for Industry;
foods that meet the criteria for nutrient content claims as per the CFIA's Food Labelling for Industry; or
foods that meet the standards for participating in the H& Stroke Foundation's Health Check program.
Those were the criteria that applied up until the end of last year. The products that you see in the list did meet these criteria.
As I mentioned, we have new criteria going forward, starting at the end of 2015. I don't know, at this stage, which of these products will or will not meet the new criteria. I just don't know yet; we will have to see. As I mentioned, many of them, at least about a third, will have to be reformulated or they won't be able to be advertised.
The Chair: Does that answer your question specifically?
Senator Seidman: I guess when you say "criteria,'' I still don't really know what you mean.
Ms. Feasby: For example, let us take one of those.
Senator Seidman: Fruit Roll-Ups, for example. How do Fruit Roll-Ups meet the nutrition criteria?
Ms. Feasby: Many of the products will meet this criteria because they may have, for example, either a source of calcium or a source of vitamin C or a source of something else or be a good source or an excellent source. If that is the case, then they meet the criteria for nutrient content claims.
Senator Seidman: So baked snack crackers, chocolate, Goldfish would meet.
Ms. Feasby: I don't have that information with me right now, but yes. They would have something —
Senator Seidman: They would have calcium.
Ms. Feasby: Or iron or whatever. They would have been assessed against the CFIA criteria and, if they met them as a good source or an excellent source, then they were approved.
Senator Seidman: That is really helpful. Thank you very much.
Senator Raine: Thank you very much. I do think it is important that industry be part of what is happening here. I know that industry respects the issues that we are facing as a country.
I am just a little bit concerned that there are only 18 companies that have committed to the principles for advertising to children under 12. How many companies are there producing food and beverages in Canada in total? What efforts are being made to bring all of the others onboard?
Ms. Feasby: I don't have that information. In terms of the number of food companies, that is something that should be addressed to the food and consumer products manufacturers. I just don't have that information.
The program has, since its inception, regularly attracted new members. We are always willing, and we would love to have new members. The 18 companies overwhelmingly represent the major advertisers to children in Canada.
Senator Frum: Mr. Lund, your statistics on the obesity rates in Quebec after the ban are pretty compelling. Your assertion that bans don't work is also compelling when you fit that in with the testimony of the panel before you, which is that bans do not apply to other sources of media that kids are exposed to.
If we take all of that as a given, it seems to me, listening to this presentation, that the real problem — and we had a witness yesterday who alluded to this as well — is this concept of advertising better-for-you products. If you do see the list of products that Senator Seidman was mentioning — and I am looking at them as well — that really is false. It is not true. I understand that you have a reason why you are making the claim; it fits with certain criteria.
My question really is: If bans are not the way to go, claims of healthiness are maybe the problem. What we should be targeting are these claims that are actually quite bizarre, quite frankly.
Ms. Feasby: That is something that is governed by Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. They set out, in the act and the guidelines, the type of claims that can be made.
Senator Frum: I understand that maybe you should be allowed to promote Corn Pops cereal and Chocolate Cheerios. We can't make that illegal, but maybe what we can make illegal is putting a label on that to imply that there is something healthful in that product.
Ms. Feasby: As I said, CFIA and Health Canada are responsible for, the claims that can be made and not made.
The Chair: I want to follow up on these lines of questioning here. If I have understood you correctly, as long as Health Canada has not come in and said that a particular product should be called for its advertising, you have no reason to exclude it or deal with it in any way, in the category of question that has been asked.
Ms. Feasby: Sorry, I'm not sure I understand your question.
The Chair: Let me ask you a specific question to put it in perspective.
Let us suppose that a drink loaded with sugar — an amount of sugar equal to the maximum amount that would appear in a common soft drink of some sort — were to say that it is a high-energy drink. You would have no role in dealing with that unless Health Canada came in and said, "This doesn't meet our criteria in some way.'' Is that correct?
Ms. Feasby: ASC's clearance section preclears advertising in five regulated categories: food; alcohol and beverage advertising; cosmetics; consumer drugs; and advertising to children. Consumer drugs, cosmetics and food all fall under the Food and Drugs Act and various guidelines.
Previously, preclearance of broadcast advertising was done by the federal government. When the government decided to no longer do it, the industry asked Advertising Standards Canada to take it on and to continue the function of preclearance. The preclearance is done against government laws and regulations.
In your example, if a script came into ASC's clearance service for an energy drink or something like that, ASC would look at what Health Canada allows. If Health Canada allows a certain claim, then that would be acceptable and the script would be approved and assigned a number. Then the broadcaster could air it, because it is checked against government regulations and standards.
The Chair: Does a new script automatically go to Health Canada?
Ms. Feasby: No. The function is not performed by Health Canada anymore. It is performed by ASC against Health Canada rules.
The Chair: Okay. If a new product that was essentially just a bottle of water and sugar that claimed that it didn't contain cholesterol and therefore was a healthy drink —
Ms. Feasby: It would be unlikely that that would be something that would be acceptable under Health Canada rules. I don't know them well, though, sorry.
The Chair: I agree that it should not be acceptable. I just want to be sure that that claim would be caught by this process and dealt with as you suggested and that the script would not be allowed to go forward. That is why I chose that.
Ms. Feasby: Oh, okay. Correct.
The Chair: Okay. Thank you very much.
Senator Eggleton: You say in here that the companies that have the food that would be considered to be unhealthy are not advertising. That is found in Appendix 1 of your presentation. Then McDonald's, as part of its ongoing commitment to healthy, active lifestyles, develops 8- to 10-second, closed-captioned vignettes, two for each season, portraying fun outdoor activities, et cetera. No food is shown, but they are, in effect, advertising the brand, aren't they? They put up their logo.
Ms. Feasby: Under the CRTC rules, that is not considered advertising.
Senator Eggleton: Even though they are promoting the brand? Okay.
The Chair: I think we understood that one very clearly.
Senator Seidman: Mr. Lund, I'd like to go back to some statistics you gave us that either I don't understand or we've had conflicting presentations to us.
You commented on Sweden, Norway and Quebec. In fact, you said that Quebec's rates of overweight and obesity have doubled between 1981 and 2004. You begin the paragraph by saying that the childhood obesity rate in Quebec is the same as in B.C. where there is no ban, and that's 7 per cent.
I believe it was Manuel Arango from the Heart & Stroke Foundation, when he was here a couple of weeks ago, who presented testimony to us that children between the ages of 2 and 11 in Quebec have the lowest obesity rates in Canada and one of the lowest level of junk food and sugary drinks consumption.
I'm just a little confused about where your data came from. The first line seems correct, in that it was presented to us that Quebec and B.C. had the lowest obesity rates in the country. I'm not sure what the dates on the data are because I don't have that documentation in front of me and it was presented several weeks ago. You then present other data, but I don't know if they're from the same studies. They include overweight and obesity, but I don't know what age categories they're for.
I'm just a little confused by contradictory testimony, although I shouldn't be because I know there are lots of sources of data and they're not all standardized. Therefore, it's easy to show opposite evidence in testimony from the very same sources of data. I'm trying to understand what you're trying to present to us here.
Mr. Lund: It's just simply providing some evidence, which is referenced below, that it came out of the 2004 Canadian Community Health Survey, which had the latest statistics at the time. There may be more recent data but, again, they won't relate back to the other ones because, as you say, there are anomalies in the data. Sometimes they're self-reported and sometimes they're actual measured reports. I can also send you a copy of the report for your files.
You're concurring with the first one, so it might be the same report. It basically says that 7 per cent is the number in B.C., which is lower than Quebec. When you combine the obesity and the overweight —
Senator Seidman: It's the same.
Mr. Lund: — in Alberta, it's lower overall.
Senator Seidman: No. The rates in Quebec and B.C. are the same at 7 per cent.
Mr. Lund: Sorry, yes.
Senator Seidman: You say that's the childhood obesity rate, but I don't know the definition of "childhood'' so I don't know what the age categories are. Then you say that the combined rates of overweight and obesity in Alberta are 22 per cent and that it's approximately the same in Quebec. You say that's the lowest combined rates of overweight and obesity; and that it's about the same as it is in Quebec.
Mr. Lund: It's actually lower. It's about the same in that it's very close, but it's actually lower in the actual data.
Senator Seidman: By 1 per cent, maybe. That's what's written here.
It would be really helpful to try to understand. It would be very sad to say that Quebec's experiment to ban advertising of any sort to children was a failure, which is basically what you're saying.
Mr. Lund: Yes. Look at when the ban took place and go to the last set of numbers. Irrespective of the rest of Canada, you would think that a ban would not allow obesity to double in those years, which I put down here. They are the real damning numbers. You would expect it to eradicate obesity. Instead, it's kind of the same in B.C. and 1 per cent better in Alberta. That is our perspective. It is ineffective.
The Chair: I don't think we would expect it to be eradicated. I will point out that we have Statistics Canada coming next week, so we can deal with some of these issues then.
Senator Raine: Following up if you don't mind, my question is very similar. I believe you're doing a bit of bafflegab here because there is a big difference between 1981 and 2004. That's a huge length of time for something to double. We all know that obesity has risen everywhere substantially since 1981.
I've seen statistics where, if you isolate the francophone media and the impact on that in Quebec versus the leakage from non-Quebec-based media into the anglophone children's population in Quebec, you see a completely different set of numbers. I would hope that our researchers don't pay too much attention to this paragraph because I think it's a little bit misleading.
I don't know if you want to comment on that. Maybe I should just ask you specifically: Does this consider anglophone and francophone children?
Mr. Lund: Yes.
Senator Raine: Did you consider that there is a lot of media coming into Quebec to anglophone children that isn't Quebec-based and isn't subject to the same ban?
Mr. Lund: No. The leakage is not huge. Look again at Numeris' numbers in terms of what people are watching. They are watching a lot of francophone television. Is there leakage? Absolutely. We are trying to pick apart the bigger number and that's the last group of numbers. Respectfully, as you said yourself, it is a long time for a creep to come. If we are espousing the fact that advertising has some great impact on obesity, then this is not proven out by the evidence.
Emotionally, I have no doubt people believe that, but the evidence suggests otherwise. Even if you want to say it's going to go up, to actually double during a ban is evidence, I think.
Senator Raine: I respectfully would suggest that there is a lot of impact in terms of the obesogenic environment we live in that has an impact on rising rates of obesity. Yet, we know that children between the ages of 2 and 11 in Quebec have the lowest rates of obesity in Canada. You are confusing overweight and obesity, which are two different categories.
The Chair: I think we've had that discussion.
This area is as difficult as some of the historic information with regard to diet for us to deal with. We have to put all these things in perspective. I'll take that as the positive part of the message you're putting to us, that everything has to be considered in this complex issue overall. The ability to bore down and get specific details on the impact of one issue is certainly complex.
The situation for us will be equally complex. We understand your role, and you've clearly answered the questions put to you to this point. Does either of you have a final comment?
Mr. Lund: My final comment is that I actually appreciated your final comment that it's a proportional situation and a complex issue. Again, I would urge everybody to have a look at the Foresight report, not just the map. There are many issues involved in this.
I reiterate that I do believe the initiatives, as the CRTC put it, the co-regulatory aspect, the fact that the other input to these is Health Canada and the Food and Drugs Act, then I think we're doing very well as a group to address these issues. Things have changed over the years and I think it has been having a positive impact.
The Chair: One thing that has come out of the two sessions this morning is a clear understanding of the relationship between Health Canada and the regulation and the enforcement of these issues, and that's a very important issue for us. I thank you.
Mr. Lund: May I make one last comment?
The Chair: Absolutely.
Mr. Lund: As a point of clarification, by and large, the claims are virtually all guided through the Food and Drugs Act. When we want to say "best'' or "better,'' there's guidance on all those things and that's where all the different regulations come down to. There's not some evil advertiser in a corner trying to get around things.
The Chair: We understand those parts. What we're into is what a 25 per cent reduction in sugar means and implies. Those are the issues we have to fathom out here. Thank you very much.
I declare the meeting adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)