Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology
Issue No. 27 - Evidence - June 14, 2017
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 14, 2017
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, to which was referred Bill S-228, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (prohibiting food and beverage marketing directed at children), met this day at 4:15 p.m. to continue its study of the bill.
Senator Kelvin Kenneth Ogilvie (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
[English]
The Chair: My name is Kelvin Ogilvie, chair of the committee and I am going to call on my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Eggleton: Art Eggleton from Toronto.
Senator Neufeld: Richard Neufeld from British Columbia.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Chantal Petitclerc from Quebec.
Senator Galvez: Rosa Galvez from Quebec. This evening I am replacing Senator Cormier.
[English]
Senator Stewart Olsen: Carolyn Stewart Olsen from New Brunswick.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman from Montreal.
The Chair: Thank you colleagues.
We are here today to deal with Bill S-228, an Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (prohibiting food and beverage marketing directed at children). Today we will hear from representatives of the advertising and broadcast industries. I'm going to introduce them and invite them to speak in the order that they are listed on the agenda.
We will start with Advertising Standards Canada. We have with us Janet Feasby, Vice President, Standards, and Nicole Bellam, Vice President, Ad Standards Clearance Services.
I understand, Ms. Feasby, that you will be presenting.
Janet Feasby, Vice President, Standards, Advertising Standards Canada: Thank you Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the committee for inviting Ad Standards Canada to comment on Bill S-228. We understand the importance of addressing the serious problem of childhood obesity.
Ad Standards Canada is a not-for-profit, self-regulatory body. The public probably knows us best for our consumer complaints procedure. Last year we adjudicated more than 1,600 complaints. Our public face is also seen in our public service ads that focus on truth in advertising.
A large part of our work is reviewing and pre-clearing material that advertisers propose to run. Ad Standards Canada pre-clears advertising of five regulated categories. Our approval of an ad means consumers can be confident that the ad complies with government regulations and guidelines.
It's important to note that Ad Standards is not an advocacy body. We have more than 60 years' experience helping advertisers adhere to advertising laws and codes, covering products ranging from alcoholic beverages, to food to consumer drugs to toys.
Ad Standards also collaborates with the federal government, particularly with Health Canada, to develop sector- specific guidelines. Most recently, the Treasury Board of Canada asked Ad Standards to pre-review the government's advertising to ensure that it is not partisan. Our job with government is not to advocate but rather to collaborate with them in helping to ensure compliance with advertising laws and regulations.
Since the focus of this committee's hearing is about marketing to children, I'll outline the current regulatory and self- regulatory framework for advertising to children in Canada outside of Quebec. I'll also outline the role Ad Standards plays in advertising self-regulation. Finally, I'll highlight several challenges we see with Bill C-228 based on our extensive experience reviewing advertising.
Canada has a strict regulatory and self-regulatory framework dealing with the content of advertising. The broadcast code for advertising to children, referred to as the Children's Code, requires that all broadcast advertising directed to children under 12 conform to the strict provisions of the Children's Code. Commercials directed to children under 12 must first be pre-cleared by Ad Standards children's clearance committee before a broadcaster can run them. This condition is imposed by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission when it grants a broadcaster its licence.
In the case of non-broadcast advertising, including advertising on websites and "advergames,'' the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards contains special provisions regarding food advertising to children. Some of this code stipulations are that ads must clearly depict the role of food products with a balanced diet, and they must not portray excessive or unreasonable amounts of food.
These codes and guidelines deal with the content of advertising, not which products can or cannot be advertised to children. That's where the Canadian Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative comes in. The children's advertising initiative was launched in 2007 by leading Canadian food and beverage advertisers to shift the emphasis in advertising directed to children under 12 to the promotion of healthier dietary choices. It does not and was never designed to affect advertising directed to teenagers or families.
Since 2007, the children's advertising initiative has been enhanced to expand its scope and add uniform nutrition criteria. The children's advertising initiative participants have reformulated and enhanced the nutritional profile of many products they advertise to children. For example, there has been a reduction in sugar in ready-to-eat cereals of between 17 to 60 per cent and no product advertised under the program has more than 200 calories per serving.
In January 2016, the participants implemented the new nutrition criteria, and approximately 30 per cent of products previously advertised to children under 12 has either been reformulated to meet the new criteria or are no longer being advertised to children.
Regarding Bill S-228, it provides that an ad may be considered directed primarily at children despite the fact that the ad is carried in a publication or broadcast intended for both children and persons 13 years of age and older. We understand that Senator Greene Raine is considering amending her bill to increase the threshold age from 13 to 16 or 17. As well, Health Canada is proposing an age threshold of under 17 in its consultations.
With an age threshold of 16 or 17, it would be extremely difficult to determine whether a food ad is directed primarily at children. If criteria are set based on the type of program and time of day, we know children and teenagers watch much of the same entertainment and sports programming in prime time viewing hours as adults do. If food advertising on those programs is considered to be primarily directed at children because some percentage of children and teens watch them, then virtually all prime time viewing would become a no-go zone for food advertising.
Moving on to non-broadcast advertising, such as on the Internet, the committee has heard that children are being bombarded by unhealthy food and beverage advertising on websites, particularly by companies participating in the children's advertising initiative. This is a finding in the Heart and Stroke Foundation's 2017 Report on the Health of Canadians. However, this finding does not align with ad standards information regarding advertising to children by the participants on Canadian websites.
For instance, the report specifically mentioned two products as being among the most frequently advertised products on popular children's websites. However, as found in ad standards compliance audits, the companies have not placed child-directed advertising for these products in any Canadian medium, including children's websites. In fact, one of the products is not even available for sale in Canada.
Furthermore, of the 10 children's websites that were reviewed, it appears that only one is a Canadian website.
Bill S-228 can only affect advertising on Canadian websites. Canadian children will still be exposed to food advertising on popular U.S. websites.
In summary, here are two points. First, we recommend that the committee look carefully over all the evidence presented and research cited; and, second, that the committee consider the complexity of the issue and the bill's potential to result in unintended consequences that extend beyond banning advertising to children.
Given Advertising Standards Canada's more than six decades of experience with advertising self-regulation, if we can help in any way, we would be pleased to do so. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Now, from Corus Entertainment Inc., we welcome Sylvie Courtemanche, Vice President and Associate General Counsel, Government and Public Relations and Compliance; and Simone Sammut, Senior Manager, Internal Programming, Policy & Government Relations, Law Department.
I understand that you are going to split your time, and we will begin with Ms. Courtemanche.
Sylvie Courtemanche, Vice President and Associate General Counsel, Government and Public Relations and Compliance, Corus Entertainment Inc.: Thank you to the committee for an opportunity to discuss an issue that we take to heart at our company: the health and well-being of Canadian children.
By way of background, Corus is Canada's leading broadcaster and creator of English language kids continent. Our networks dedicated to children's programming — YTV, TELETOON, Treehouse, Nickelodeon, Cartoon Network and the Disney family of channels — have emerged as number one across all kid, tween and teen demographics. Corus's production company, Nelvana, is a world leader, producer and distributor of kids animation. We export our content in over 160 countries and in more than 40 languages.
Simone Sammut, Senior Manager, Internal Programming, Policy & Government Relations, Law Department, Corus Entertainment Inc.: We are enormously proud of our success in the kids' market, but we know that the media landscape is changing. The fact is that we have reached an inflection point.
According to recent viewing data, Netflix now draws a kids 2 to 11 audience share that is larger in prime time than Treehouse, Disney Channel and YTV combined. Corus is working hard to adapt to this new reality, but there is no doubt that significant challenges lie ahead.
Bill S-228 addresses an important public policy imperative. Childhood obesity is a complex issue that Corus takes very seriously. In her June 1 testimony, Senator Greene Raine expressed her support for media campaigns that focus on healthy food and eating habits. That is exactly what Corus does. Since 2004, we have devoted over $15 million worth of advertising time to healthy, active living initiatives for kids and families.
We recently launched the Kid Food Nation initiative in partnership with the Public Health Agency of Canada and the Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada. This campaign aims to help kids and parents develop practical knowledge related to planning, preparing and cooking healthy meals and snacks.
Ms. Courtemanche: We fully understand the important public policy challenge that Bill S-228 is attempting to address, but in its current form, we believe the bill has two key flaws. First, in practice, it will not effectively address the ads that kids are actually consuming. Second, it risks creating many negative unintended consequences.
First, to be effective, any advertising restrictions must actually follow kids' viewing. The reality is that over 70 per cent of all kids' prime time viewing in the 2 to 11 demographic is Netflix viewing, and YouTube accounts for 74 per cent of total online viewing in the 2 to 17 demographic. That is time that kids are spending online, not watching TV.
Although the bill applies to Canadian online media, we know that online advertising is incredibly difficult to police. This means that the bill's impact will largely be felt by broadcasters like Corus who are already subject to strict regulatory oversight. CRTC regulations and the Broadcast Code for Advertising to Children restricts broadcasters from airing more than 4 minutes of commercial messages in any half hour of kids' shows, compared to other programming that has higher or no limits. In fact, in the last 10 years, Corus has reduced the number of food and beverage ads on its kids' channels. However, we know that we still have work to do, and we want to work with you to be part of the solution.
But, to reiterate, what kids are seeing on TV absolutely pales in comparison to what they are seeing online, and enforcing an online ad ban will prove incredibly difficult. The U.K. is evidence of that fact.
Ms. Sammut: That brings us to our second key concern. This bill has the potential to create unintended negative consequences.
Broadcasters like Corus must hold CRTC licences to operate; Internet-based services do not.
As a condition of their licences, broadcasters like Corus must spend a significant portion of their revenues on Canadian content; Internet-based services do not.
Broadcasters like Corus must comply with industry regulations and standards that influence our programming choices and is advertising material; Internet-based services do not.
While watching any children's programming on Corus networks, parents can be sure that every ad on air is heavily filtered. Their content, scheduling, presentation and underlying values must comply with the strict parameters of the Broadcast Code for Advertising to Children and our own internal policies.
Our filter extends beyond advertising to the programs themselves. We recognize that kids are not only vulnerable to negative messaging in commercials, but in the programs that they watch.
Corus is proud to create a safe haven for Canadian kids. Every program that we air must comply with the applicable codes of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters. In contrast, the programs that kids are watching online are completely unfiltered.
This bill will significantly impact revenue for channels like YTV, TELETOON and Treehouse, while we are facing competitive challenges from unregulated media sources. Threatening those channels will only drive more kids onto the unfiltered Internet.
Ms. Courtemanche: The financial impact on our Canadian children's services would eventually lead to losses of jobs in the Canadian creative sector as well. The Canadian Media Producers Association estimated that in 2015-16, roughly $573 million was spent on the production of Canadian children and youth television and feature films. That translates to thousands of animation, acting and production jobs across Canada.
Quebec provides us with a telling example of the impact of banning kids' advertising. As you know, Quebec has had a ban since 1980. The ban has had a direct impact on the production of children's content in that province. The CMPA found that out of the $473 million spent on English language children and youth productions, roughly equal amounts were spent on live action and animation productions. By contrast, of the $96 million spent on French language children and youth productions during the same period, only 12 per cent was spent on animation.
Two factors come into play: Quebec's smaller subscriber base, and the ban on advertising. Once upon a time, large Quebec-based animation studios like Cinar and CinéGroupe stood tall. However, to our knowledge, only three small animation studios are still working there, and they survive mostly on projects commissioned by TELETOON/ TÉLÉTOON, our national bilingual animation service. Even Quebec producers have called for changes to the provincial ban.
We would like to thank the committee for this opportunity and welcome the chance to work with you to strengthen the safeguards relating to kids' advertising. We would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you all very much. I'm going to open the floor to questions from my colleagues.
Senator Eggleton: Thank you very much for your presentations.
This committee did a study on obesity, and it was alarmed by the increase in obesity in children over the last three decades. We were not convinced, certainly at the time of that study, that the voluntary methods were working at all. In fact, some of the studies that have been presented to this committee indicate that they are failing to do much about this, that we're continuing to see this increase in obesity amongst children.
One of our witnesses, an assistant professor at the School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, was involved in studies that were done, indicating, for example: "We again did a pre and post study to see if the healthfulness of the food and beverages advertised to kids has changed since these new uniform criteria have been implemented,'' referring to the CAI, the Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative.
We found no changes whatsoever . . . .
One of the shocking differences we found is that children's exposure to food and beverage marketing actually increased after the self-regulatory pledges were implemented. . . .
The other thing we found is that the power of food and beverage ads has increased since the implementation of the CAI. Children and teens are targeted more frequently — about 92 per cent more frequently.
Part of the problem would seem to be that some of the companies that agree to this — 18 of them, I understand — are not the whole field. I don't know what percentage they are; maybe you will know that.
The Canadian Cancer Society, in their presentation, advised us of another poll. They said that a recent public opinion poll shows that there is broad public support for restrictions on marketing to kids. For example, 70 per cent of respondents felt that children are exposed to too much advertising by the food and beverage industry. So you're not convincing the public either, from the sounds of it, that the voluntary method is the way to go.
I certainly agree with you that whatever we do, we need to get a better handle on the Internet and all of the other methods by which young people, children and teens, see these ads. But television is still a big factor in it all. It's not quite as inconsequential in this day and age.
Now, my question is for Corus. You said that focusing on healthy food and eating habits is exactly what you do. Some of the evidence we have before this committee — this is what I want you to comment on — is that a restaurant chain, for example, could have both healthy and unhealthy foods. They may advertise the healthy foods during children's programming as a draw to get into their facility, but that's also where the unhealthy foods are. What do you do about that?
Ms. Courtemanche: Just to be clear, when we are talking about our ad campaigns, they are what we call public service announcements. That's outside of a campaign or an advertising campaign that is purchased by a client. We have done $50 million of what we call public service announcements that do the promotion of healthy eating habits such as how to make lunch. When I talk about the $50 million, it's what we do outside of our commercial business.
Did you want to talk more about it, Simone?
Senator Eggleton: So that's over and above the advertising.
Ms. Courtemanche: We don't get paid for that. We do that for free. We feel that we have a public duty to educate children on healthy eating habits, like ParticipACTION, exercise, and all that kind of stuff.
Senator Eggleton: But you would still have commercials with soda pop and things like that, which have high sugar content?
Ms. Sammut: Certainly we still have food and beverage advertising. In children's programming, it would only be commercials that were cleared through ASC to air in children's programming. Presumably, if they were a CAI member, it would have to meet their commitments or it would have to adhere to the broadcast code.
Senator Eggleton: But that system doesn't work. That's the evidence clearly before us. So I think we have to find something stronger.
Ms. Courtemanche: We don't disagree that improvements are needed, absolutely. We're here to tell you that we're not confused; we can do better. But the way the studies currently define food, it's like any food; not all foods and beverages are necessarily unhealthy. For instance, milk is not unhealthy. That's been lumped into that study. We're just saying there could be a better definition. Do you hear what I'm saying?
Senator Eggleton: I understand what you're saying.
We don't officially have an amendment before the committee, but the proponent of this bill, Senator Nancy Greene Raine, has suggested in her remarks to the committee that she would change it to "unhealthy food.'' This would apparently follow the World Health Organization definitions with respect to how you develop a code for unhealthy food, and that would be developed through Health Canada. Do you think that is a better approach?
Ms. Courtemanche: Absolutely, senator. I think that trying to narrow the scope to unhealthy food and beverage is a step in the right direction. But I want to tell you that ultimately the devil is in the detail. As somebody who has worked in the regulatory environment for the last 30 years, broad concepts, once they are translated into a regulation, will allow us to better comment on the financial impact that will have on our industry.
However, we also support the shift to regulations, because we think that's a better approach. Regulations allow you to adapt to changing circumstances a little better than strict legislation. So we agree with those two approaches, but we can't comment further until we actually see the language of the regulation.
We looked at what Health Canada issued this week, and it's an example of why the devil is in the detail. They are defining advertising that's directed to kids through time blocks. The problem with that is that for a 16-year-old in Canada right now, the number-one-rated show is "Survivor.'' If you just use time blocks, the programs directed to moms or others are going to get caught. So the impact is going to be widespread on the industry, including local TV. Local TV news is one of the ways we inform the public, and it could be impacted.
What we're saying is that absolutely a definition is required and regulations are a good way to go, but let's understand that how that is defined and interpreted. How we define that will be key. We certainly want to be part of the process to help you define that.
Senator Eggleton: Fair comment.
Does Advertising Standards have any comment, particularly on these changes to unhealthy foods? It would be 16 and under, or "under 17'' is another way it's expressed, but it would stop at 16. It would have fewer prescriptive parts in the legislation and be dealt with more in regulation.
Ms. Feasby: As Sylvie said, it's regulations — more flexible. I think it's the age issue. Does 16 or 17 does encroach on adult viewing time.
You referenced studies that you've looked at and discussed. I have read those studies. They look at children's preferred viewing times. The studies include teenagers. Children's preferred viewing are things like "Survivor'' and "The Big Bang Theory.'' The self-regulatory program was never intended to capture those. All it was intended to do was to shift the mix of products advertised during children's programming, and children's programming is largely defined by the broadcaster, not by what teens watch. All those studies look at teen viewing, teen websites, and what children watch. It was never intended to do that.
In what it was intended to do, it has been successful. There have been reductions in sugar, sodium. No confectionery products are advertised to children under 12, no chocolates, no soft drinks. So it was successful in what it was intended to do, but it does not go so far as to touch what the research points out — anything that children like to watch and teenage viewing.
Senator Seidman: Thank you very much for your presentations.
Senator Eggleton's preamble before his question could easily be mine in that we really did hear when we did our obesity study that voluntary measures have not been terribly successful, to say the least. I remember being profoundly struck by — and it may have been the advertising association — the presentation of a list of permissible products that had gone through vetting. One of them was this sugar strip that had nothing but sugar in it and added vitamin C, so it could be advertised as a healthy product. That struck me in a very negative way.
I hear today from both of you about two voluntary committees — standards, codes. I'd like to ask you about them and how they work. The one that you mentioned in your presentation on advertising standards was the Ad Standards' Children's Advertising Clearance Committee, and the other one mentioned by Corus was the Broadcast Code for Advertising to Children. Both of those are offering voluntary standards, and I'd like to know from you what exactly the criteria are that are used to assess advertisements for approval.
Ms. Feasby: I'm going to ask my colleague to take that question because that is the area she works in. Those two are the same, the children's clearance committee and the broadcast code.
Nicole Bellam, Vice President, Ad Standards Clearance Services, Advertising Standards Canada: First of all, I should point out that every single broadcast advertisement in Canada is reviewed under the Broadcast Code for Advertising to Children, and that code takes into account the vulnerability of children. For example, it has certain clauses that say you can't use undue pressure. Therefore, no ad can say to a child, "Buy it, get it; ask your parents to get it for you.'' There is no nag factor either.
As well, any promotion by program character or any well-known spokesperson or animated character cannot be used in an advertisement for children, with the exception of the ones that have been created by advertisers to promote their products.
We have also developed certain specific criteria or guidelines that relate to food advertising in particular. So no advertisements for food or any other product directed to children can depict a child consuming more than one serving size of any food. So even in a commercial for a toy oven, for example, a child cannot be seen eating a mound of cupcakes. They can only be shown consuming one serving.
A meal has to be depicted appropriately as a complete meal. You cannot show a child eating only the french fries and leaving the chicken and broccoli, nor can you in a commercial depict a child choosing the lollipop over the apple.
All of these guidelines have been included to ensure that food is represented in an appropriate manner, not only for food commercials but even for non-food, where there's a food scenario in the commercial. Those are the ones that would really apply to food more than others.
Social values as well. Obviously, you cannot depict any activity that is immoral, unethical or illegal, as determined by the committee that reviews every single children's commercial.
I should have said that these are not reviewed by us. They're reviewed by a committee that includes three public representatives, as well as people from industry and from the broadcasters. And the CRTC has a seat. That's very important.
Senator Seidman: And what about Corus? You mentioned the broadcast code for advertising.
Ms. Courtemanche: We have to get a clearance before we broadcast any commercial content within our kids' services. That's how it works. It's the process they've described to you.
Senator Seidman: The same vetting process.
Ms. Courtemanche: This is the only vetting process that exists. We have our own internal policies which we overlay on top of that. We will look at it first from our own internal policies. There are things that we don't permit — and I'll let Simone talk about that — in addition to restrictions under the code.
Ms. Sammut: Anything cleared by the ASC, which has kids' clearance, would air in our kids' programming, so nothing that hasn't been vetted by the ASC. On top of that, we would look at it from our own internal policies, taking into consideration the audience for that particular program or our brand perspective or what we've heard from our audience and from our viewers as far as their expectations.
Ms. Courtemanche: For instance, we have Treehouse. Treehouse is preschool service. So we are going to make sure that any advertisement that's contained — in any event, right now we can't have any during the day parts on Treehouse. There's just no advertising. It doesn't come in until later in the day. We have a strict policy as to what we will include on Treehouse. This is directed to preschool kids. We'll have a different policy with respect to YTV that goes to 17. So we have these branding policies on top of it that would filter the kinds of ads that get on our services, in addition to what the codes have.
Ms. Sammut: Just to clarify, there's no advertising to preschoolers, so it's a preschool service.
Ms. Courtemanche: Right. Sorry, there's just co-viewing in the evening.
Ms. Sammut: Right, it would be parent-targeted or family-targeted, but they must be preschool friendly. So we would also look at something that we would decide isn't suitable for a preschool audience. So the creative itself, if it were too scary or sending the wrong social message or generally inappropriate for that age group.
On something like YTV, the same would be said. As our audience ages and changes and fluctuates, then we would look at the time blocks and the scheduling as filtering when that would happen.
Ms. Courtemanche: We're really conscious about creating what we call a safe haven.
Many years ago, when I worked at the CRTC, the Power Rangers came out. I don't know if you remember that. Canada was the first country in the world that created a violence code because in the States there's no such thing. It's not just about the advertising. It's about the whole content, creating a safe haven during the whole content schedule so that it's a safe place to be. We take that very seriously because that's our brand.
Senator Seidman: But you really haven't fully answered the question. I haven't heard about clear, specific criteria when you're vetting an ad. You have some kind of board. I'd like to know much more about that, and I don't have time. I'm just putting that out to you, that I don't hear criteria. Most of what I hear is a sort of judgment, policy judgments. It's not so clear to me how you would distinguish between — like that sugar strip that had vitamin C in it, for example.
Ms. Feasby: That's not in the broadcast code for advertising. The broadcast code deals strictly with content. We can leave the committee a copy of the code or send it.
The Chair: On that specific point, Ms. Bellam, you mentioned that a cupcake could be used, but limited to one cupcake. Would you suggest that a cupcake would pass the unhealthy food test?
Ms. Feasby: That would be an ad by a toy company, not a food manufacturer. The voluntary initiative that establishes the nutrition criteria is for food manufacturers, not for the advertising of toys or anything else.
The Chair: You've made the point. I totally understand it.
Senator Neufeld: Thanks to all of you for your presentations. I'll ask a broader question.
When I listened to both presentations, it was about things that wouldn't work, that maybe information was incorrect. We still have an obesity problem, and we've had regulation for a long time, according to your own presentation. You've done things — Corus has done things for a long time. What will work? We're not here to try to make life miserable. We're actually trying to think about ways that we can curb this problem of obesity within children. These are our kids. Tell me, what works? What would work?
Ms. Courtemanche: I'd like to point out —
Senator Neufeld: I got the idea of what won't work.
Ms. Courtemanche: No, I agree with you.
In Quebec there has been a ban since 1980, and the childhood obesity rate is higher in Quebec than in Alberta, where you've never had a ban. I look at that and I say to myself: Is there a direct correlation between the two? There are a lot of studies out there. Is there absolute, irrefutable evidence?
It's a complex issue. I don't need to tell you that it has to do with exercise rates, with socio-economic factors. The issue of obesity is a highly complex one, and what we're telling you is that when it comes to the marketing and advertising side, it's just as complex.
Can we do better? Absolutely. One of the initiatives that has been talked about is how to better define what constitutes an unhealthy product, and we said yes, regulations can take us there. So that's a solution. What we've said to you, though, is make sure that solution doesn't just apply to linear broadcast services because the vast majority of kids are not even watching that.
We're going to have a heck of a time trying to regulate what goes on the Internet. The CRTC itself has taken a hands-off approach to the Internet. Nobody requires a licence.
I'm saying that when over 70 per cent of the viewing is not related to our services, even if you go ahead with the ad ban, a great proportion of kids won't have the benefit of the filters that you're trying to impose, which we think is going in the right direction.
Senator Neufeld: What I heard was what you actually said to start with. The only thing that I heard different was about unhealthy foods. So why does it take someone to bring forward a piece of legislation to make people start thinking about what else we can do? I think it's a fair question. It might be a little tough, but it's a fair question. Everybody is sailing along, we're fine, and all of a sudden somebody comes up with a piece of legislation. I'm not saying it's perfect, but certainly, knowing Nancy Greene Raine as well as I do, she's serious about childhood obesity.
Ms. Courtemanche: I met with Senator Greene Raine personally. I know she's serious, absolutely.
Senator Neufeld: What else is there? We already know she may be presenting an amendment that defines unhealthy food. You've said that.
Ms. Courtemanche: The other issue is what constitutes advertising directed to kids. There aren't a million things you can do when it comes to this area. There are really two things: What constitutes unhealthy foods and beverages and when is your advertising directed towards kids? Otherwise you're going to catch everything and you're going to do severe damage to the Canadian industry that provides Canadian content and reflects our values. I don't think this committee wants to shut down Canadian content that reflects our values, because that's what's going to end up happening. What we're saying is two things, and it's those two things that I described. Beyond that, I don't think there's much more that you need to do.
The Chair: I think the idea of allowing advertising for a children's oven that shows a cupcake is a good example of exactly what you're getting at. That is one of the major issues. It is high in the category of the issues around obesity.
Senator Petitclerc: I'm trying to understand, because from what I hear, it seems like the voluntary initiatives and criteria and policy that you've just described, you're sending a bit of a message that it's working already or it's working well enough. At the same time, both of you mentioned the fear of what you call the unintended consequences of the bill, and the description of that was mostly financial in relation to the business and the programming.
It seems like you're saying that the voluntary part of it is already working mostly, but then the bill will hurt the business. I'm just trying to understand the difference.
Also, vulnerable children and obesity being the main goals, is there no other way to finance children's programming than marketing to kids?
Ms. Courtemanche: That's why we have public service announcements where we promote healthy eating practices, et cetera. So yes, we agree. We've been doing that since 2004.
To come back to your point, can we do better? Yes, we're here to tell you that. Can the voluntary code that we use be improved? Absolutely. We're not confused about that. We just don't want the baby to be thrown out with the bathwater. We think we can construct a regulatory regime that defines and will help the issues we're talking about, whether it's very fruity strips or something else, to create an exclusion.
We carry Disney services. Disney uses a code that is very strict, and that's a filter that we use on our Disney services. That's part of their branding. We don't do it on all our channels, but on our Disney channels, our agreement with Disney requires us to be far more strict in what we can or can't offer.
Can that kind of overlay happen? Absolutely. We understand that's where we need to go. We're going to keep on doing healthy eating practices and promote that throughout our schedules, ParticipACTION, all that kind of stuff. That has to be part of the solution. It's not just about banning ads. It's about making sure that our kids change their lifestyles.
I mean, I'm not confused. This is the first generation where kids are expected not to live as long as their parents. That's a scary thought. I tremble at that thought. It really bothers me. Having said that, I want us to make sure that whatever we do is truly effective. Yes, we will continue every effort to promote healthy eating.
Ms. Feasby: The voluntary Canadian children's advertising initiative, where the 18 food advertisers and manufacturers come together, has been successful with respect to advertising to children under 12. It wasn't intended to deal with advertising to teenagers or anything like that. It has evolved since it's been in place for 10 years now, since 2007. Its scope has increased. In 2015 we developed new nutrition criteria that took effect in 2016. It can continue to evolve and will certainly be in place. As you said, certainly there are things we can do and look at enhancing the program.
Senator Galvez: Thank you very much for your presentations. I appreciate very much your efforts.
I want to start by telling you part of my experience as a mother of three children. My first two children were toddlers when we moved to France, and there are not many obese children in Europe. There are not many obese children in Italy where we lived too, although they eat a lot of pasta.
With regard to TV public programming, children are protected from 7:00 to 10:00 and then from 4:00 to 7:00. So there are two periods, early in the morning and early in the evening, where you don't see much adult-targeted advertising.
My children learned to cook watching TV on Saturday morning. There was cooking for children, and they learned also how to become responsible, healthy consumers. They learned to read labels when they went to the market; how much sugar, what is natural, what is chemical. When I came back to Canada — I am from Quebec, and maybe we like too much poutine — I was sad to see that.
Now Corus has been there since 1999, exactly when I was living in Europe. So that is like 20 years. I will go along with my colleague Senator Seidman. If you have been there and if you have been doing very well and you've been advertising the good stuff, how do you measure the impact of this in real life? There are plenty of ideas. I invite you to look at what they do in Europe.
Ms. Courtmanche: You're right. I go back to my own experience. When I was in grade school, 400 students went to this elementary school. There was one obese person in that entire school. I'm sure if I went back there today, that would not be the case. I'm not confused about that.
You're right about Europe. One of the things that happens in Europe is that there are not a lot of highly refined foods, the kind that we see in North America. This is not just a Canadian problem; this is a North American issue, the highly refined sugars and foods. I absolutely get that.
We didn't operate in French Canada, so you wouldn't have seen Corus services. We have English services. We now have "la chaîne Disney'' in Quebec, that's only since last year. So, our healthy eating initiatives that we're talking about, unfortunately you would not have seen them because they are not available in the market. But we agree; that's exactly what we do. We show kids how to cook and make meals with their parents, and absolutely, that's part of the education process.
But we're not the only ones that need to do that. That has to happen in schools, at home. We all bear a responsibility; it's not just us. We do understand that we have a responsibility, and we do take it very seriously.
In Quebec, unfortunately the ad ban has not resulted in a significant decrease in obesity. Since 1980, it has been there. Obesity rates are still high in Quebec. So if there was a direct correlation between one or the other, you would have seen a significant decrease.
What happened is that were a lot fewer choices for children. There is no preschool service in French in Quebec. There is no equivalent in Quebec. Why? Because the ban in advertising doesn't make it profitable to do it or you don't have the viability to do it. So it just doesn't happen. That kind of educational platform is left to services like TéléQuébec that are provincially funded. TV Ontario does that kind of stuff. Unless the government steps in, it's not commercially viable to do it. That's the reality.
Senator Beyak: I'm representing Senator Greene Raine today, replacing her. We had to keep a quorum in the Senate. So sorry I was late.
Nancy and I are good friends. As a small business owner, she was opposed to regulations that are unnecessary, and higher taxes.
I don't support the bill, but because of the principle behind it and the evidence, I am sure it will pass.
If I have missed anything in your presentations, I wonder if there are any suggestions you can give us, because it isn't going to affect U.S. cable companies or networks, Netflix, which is American-owned, YouTube, which is American- owned. It is only going to affect Canadian businesses. Is there anything we can do to help if it does pass?
Ms. Courtmanche: You have a jurisdiction issue, which is the problem fundamentally. That's why we're telling you it's not just the fact that the kids are watching online. This doesn't touch any of the content where there is absolutely no filter. So unless you were to come to an agreement with the American government, and we know that they want deregulation — anything that has to do with regulations, you're not going to be their friends. They are in the middle of NAFTA negotiations. I'm not sure they are going to like that. Having said that, yes, there is a big hole in the system.
It's the same thing with pharmaceutical drugs. We are not entitled in Canada to advertise, but all the commercials come in on NBC and Fox and there are no filters. That's what is going to happen with this. You're going to have some filters on the Canadian services and this stuff is still going to come in completely unfiltered, but even more online.
How to be effective? I would love to tell you I have the answer. I really, really would. I'm sorry I don't. Absent some kind of understanding with the States, this isn't going to happen.
Senator Beyak: Thank you very much.
Senator Eggleton: Both of you have used the phrase "unintended consequence'' a lot, so I wonder if you could expand upon it.
I also want to mention in terms of the last comment that, yes, you can't stop all the advertising that comes in from stateside, although programs that are rebroadcast in Canada on Canadian channels substitute advertising; so we can catch them. Netflix doesn't do advertising. They are on a subscription basis, but there are other means of getting advertising to children.
Anyway, tell me more about what you think the unintended consequences are specifically.
Ms. Courtmanche: One of the unintended consequences is the financial impact on our Canadian services and our ability to continue to offer Canadian kids' services that reflect Canadian values and create jobs across the country and Canadian content. I think that that's definitely a very real consequence.
The CRTC had a hearing a couple of years ago called Let's Talk TV. As part of that they said they were going to start regulating TV services just like radio. Right now, with radio, one day you can be a country music station and the next day you can be a rock station. It's what they did with TV. So if the unintended consequences affect our ability to drive enough advertising revenues to sustain, well then our choice is just to say, "Okay, we'll go into a format that will allow us to be viable.'' It's the Canadian kids that are going to lose out, quite frankly. I think that's sad.
Senator Eggleton: Well, wait a minute. What about the consequences of the increased risk of chronic disease for children, children who are frequently overweight or obese right into adulthood? Increased health spending.
Ms. Courtmanche: I'm not confused about that. But if it was true that advertising was the only reason that is happening in Canada, I would say, okay, yes; but it's not. It's a complex issue. We talked about it.
So can we do better? Yes, I have agreed with you. I have said let's start restricting what constitutes "unhealthy.'' That's one way to go.
But what I'm saying is that when you start closing the door on this, do it in a way that is not going to impact thousands of jobs and Canadian values and programming content, which I think is equally important.
Senator Eggleton: That's a fair comment.
Let me ask a question of Advertising Standards Canada. We have been talking about and hearing about unhealthy foods in the sense of the World Health Organization's nutrient profiling system. Do you use that in terms of the standards that are set for advertising?
Ms. Feasby: We heard last week that there are a number of different nutrient profiling systems. There is a U.K. system, PAHO and the one you're speaking of. The nutrition criteria developed by the Canadian Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative looked at a number of systems. There was a similar program in the United States and the EU. Because the companies involved are global and operate on a global stage, the criteria that were developed in each of the areas — Canada, EU and U.S. — are consistent. Some of the criteria are different. For example, higher dairy fat is allowed in the EU Pledge program because culturally they are used to more high-fat products. So we looked at Health Canada's guidance, the food guide and the CFIA labelling tool. There were a lot of other standards that informed us, but at the end of the day, it was mostly Canada.
Senator Eggleton: So it's not the World Health Organization's nutrient profiling guides?
Ms. Feasby: I'm not sure that was in place. It might not have been.
Senator Eggleton: I think you're right. It's fairly recent.
Senator Seidman: I'm going to pursue the issue of criteria. I would like to understand your response to my previous question, if I could. What I think I heard from you is that your standards and code don't really govern the content of the food products that are advertised. That's not what your standards are about. For example, the list of advertised products in 2015 in appendix 1 of the Canadian Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative compliance report would stand as the kind of products that would be advertised?
Ms. Feasby: No, not necessarily. The Canadian Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative's uniform criteria sets out nutrition criteria in eight food categories. The products you're referring to, in 2015, these criteria came into effect in 2016. About 30 per cent of the products of the companies that previously advertised to children under 12 were either reformulated to meet the new criteria or they stopped advertising. That list is not current, is what I'm saying.
Senator Seidman: Could you tell us what the difference is between what was viable in 2015 and what was no longer viable in 2016 in terms of the 30 per cent of those products? What is it that you did away with? I'm still trying to get at what the criteria are here.
Ms. Feasby: I understand.
These are the criteria that apply from January 1, 2016 on. Before, companies had their own company-developed criteria. Now this is one document and one set of criteria based on their standards for limits on calories, sugar, sodium, and saturated and trans fats. Also, there are nutrients to encourage. If a product meets those limits set out in this document, then the participating companies — I'm not talking about other companies, but the 18 companies — then yes, the product can be advertised to children under 12, for example, on a Corus station.
Senator Seidman: So as Senator Eggleton was pursuing with you, the criteria are not the WHO criteria for healthy or unhealthy food?
Ms. Feasby: No, they are not.
Senator Seidman: It is whatever standards were developed —
Ms. Feasby: They were developed for this purpose because nothing else existed at the time.
Senator Seidman: For example, the food that I asked you about earlier — the fruit strip that was under 100 calories and was primarily sugar but which had vitamin C — would that qualify under the current standards?
Ms. Feasby: I'm not sure. I would have to look into it.
Senator Seidman: Thank you.
Senator Galvez: Following this document on your criteria, how does this compare with best industry standards, other standards around the world or those given by international organizations? Have you compared them?
Ms. Feasby: Are you talking about nutrition criteria?
Senator Galvez: Yes.
Ms. Feasby: The nutrition criteria are similar to the ones developed by the EU voluntary program and those in the U.S. by their voluntary program.
Since this time, there have been other nutrition profiling systems developed, but I haven't compared them. There is a difference. Most of those look at criteria — elements to limit, like limits on sugar, salt and fat, as does this.
Most of them don't also take into account nutrition components to encourage, such as vitamins, minerals and fibre. These criteria take both of those into account. I do not believe that the others necessarily do, but I haven't examined them in detail.
Senator Galvez: Do you think it would be important to —
Ms. Feasby: Yes. As I said, this program was not intended to be static; it was intended to evolve and it has.
We do say that the criteria will be reviewed in this document. It says it will be reviewed after three years, or if Health Canada changes criteria, then obviously it will be reviewed sooner. So it's three years or sooner, if Health Canada changes.
Senator Petitclerc: I was a little surprised to hear you say I think two times, Madam Courtemanche, that the Quebec example is not successful. I'm a little puzzled by that because that's not what we heard from Senator Greene Raine. That's not what I found when I prepared for my own speech on the second reading of that bill.
Even here on October 2016, the Ottawa Citizen was saying that Quebec, since 1980, has banned the commercials. As a result, a 2011 study concludes that the law is associated with a 13 per cent reduction in the likelihood of the purchase of fast food. It also says that Quebec has the lowest obesity rate in Canada among children age 6 to 11 and the highest rate of fruit and vegetable consumption, all of this despite Quebec children having among the most sedentary lifestyle.
So that's two very different things.
Ms. Feasby: The first study you referred to was about what they chose to eat. What did you say? It did not deal with obesity.
Senator Petitclerc: There was a 13 per cent reduction in the likelihood to purchase fast food.
Ms. Feasby: Exactly, purchase. But that's not obesity.
Senator Petitclerc: And the lowest obesity rate.
Ms. Feasby: Well, that's not correct. This is the 2004 community health study —
Senator Petitclerc: That's 2011.
Ms. Feasby: — which is where everyone gets their data from.
Senator Petitclerc: This one is 2011.
Ms. Courtemanche: We're talking about obesity rates. Let's not get confused. The 2011 study just dealt with purchasing different types of foods. It has nothing to do with obesity. Let's be clear.
Ms. Feasby: The 2004 community health study is the one that everyone quotes. The combined obesity and overweight stats for children in Quebec is 22.6 and for Alberta it's 21.8.
Ms. Courtemanche: We need better data. I'm shocked that we don't have anything that is more recent than 2004 because this is one of the things that we need. I was shocked myself. When I looked at this, I said, "Are you kidding?'' This is 13 years old. So let's not make decisions on data that is completely irrelevant. We can't believe that that's right anymore.
Having said that, based on that data, it's true that from 2004 it had not had an effect. It started in 1980.
Senator Petitclerc: The data that says the obesity rate is lowest in Quebec, and highest rate of vegetable and fruit consumption, are you saying it's wrong or outdated?
Ms. Courtemanche: I'm saying it's outdated. It's time to refresh; it was 2004 and we are in 2017.
Senator Petitclerc: And new data says otherwise?
Ms. Feasby: No, the data we're referring to is from 2004.
Senator Petitclerc: We don't have new data.
Ms. Courtemanche: We haven't been able to find it. What I'm saying is this is such an important piece of legislation, let's get it right. Let's make sure we're basing this on correct data, not 13-year-old data.
Senator Petitclerc: But it's not necessarily wrong.
Ms. Courtemanche: Honestly, we don't know.
Senator Neufeld: I know when Nancy and I first spoke about this, I mentioned that maybe what we should be doing is limiting the amount of sugar and salt — the things that we know that are not really good for us, sugar and salt, trans fats — in all our foods for everybody, regardless of whether you're a child or not. I talked to her a bit about that.
I asked that same question to another panel, and these were knowledgeable people. They said that would be too difficult to do. But yet I understand, Ms. Feasby, that that's already been done for some foods. Is that correct? That report you referred to Senator Seidman?
Ms. Feasby: It was done for the categories of products that are advertised by the 18 companies in the children's initiative.
Senator Neufeld: So is that only children's food, or is that where sugar is limited? I think you said sugar is limited?
Ms. Feasby: It's food that is advertised to children.
Senator Neufeld: I want to take it a little further. You say there has been a reduction in sugar and ready-to-eat cereals of 17 to 60 per cent.
Ms. Feasby: That could be the same cereals that adults eat.
Senator Neufeld: That's the question.
Ms. Feasby: It could be; sure.
Senator Neufeld: There are not two kinds of cereal on the shelf. There is one kind. If it's Corn Flakes, it doesn't say Corn Flakes for kids and Corn Flakes for adults?
Ms. Feasby: No. But let's say a company has a product line of eight cereals and they wanted to advertise, they could only advertise to children under 12 the cereals in that product line that meet these criteria.
Senator Neufeld: Would you agree that maybe an easier way to limit obesity or deal with it is to limit the number of additives that can be put into food that creates the problem in most cases — not always, but in most cases?
Ms. Feasby: I'm not a health expert, a nutritionist. I don't think I can say. Certainly one way to go is to look at the content.
The Chair: I want to make sure I understood what I thought I heard you say. You showed us a document, which had the newly developed nutritional guidelines for the voluntary agreement among advertisers. What I thought I heard you say is that prior to that document, each advertiser developed their own guideline.
Ms. Feasby: Yes.
The Chair: So I heard that correctly.
Ms. Feasby: You did.
The Chair: I won't go further than that. I'm going to stop there. Thank you very much. You answered the question.
Senator Eggleton: I have a quick question.
Ms. Feasby, 18 companies belong to this CAI formula. What percentage of the advertising to children do they represent?
Ms. Feasby: I don't have the percentage. It is a vast majority. And we know that because we pre-clear all children's advertising. My colleague sees ads of every type of food that is advertised to children, by every manufacturer. By far, the members of the initiative, the 18 companies, 7 companies advertise to children and 11 do not. Of those seven, they are the vast majority of the food advertisers to children.
Would you agree, Corus? You see it, too.
Senator Eggleton: Who are some of the seven?
Ms. Feasby: The seven are Campbell's, Danone, General Mills, Kellogg's, McDonald's, Post and Parmalat.
Senator Eggleton: Some of those companies have products that are geared towards children, the Frosted Flakes and the hamburgers and all of the fries and all the stuff you would get. Some of those companies have what I would think and what most people would think would be unhealthy foods.
Ms. Feasby: For example, the quick service restaurant meals that are advertised to children do not include french fries. It's a Happy Meal, 1 per cent white milk, apple slices and a Danino strawberry yogurt tube. Or it's chicken, white meat McNuggets, 1 per cent milk, apple slices and Danino yogurt.
Senator Eggleton: Once you get them into the McDonald's restaurant, once Ronald McDonald convinces them to come in, they are there exposed to all sorts unhealthy foods as well.
What about the beverage companies? You didn't mention any beverage companies.
Ms. Feasby: The beverage companies that are members do not advertise to children under 12.
Senator Eggleton: But they do advertise to teenagers?
Ms. Feasby: I don't know. All I know is that they don't advertise to kids. I think you will hear from the beverage association tomorrow.
Senator Eggleton: Yes, we will. Thank you.
The Chair: This is a complex area. That's one thing we agree on. One of the things that both groups have said — one said it directly and the other alluded to it — is that in this complex issue, a number of factors are involved in healthy living overall. And we certainly and absolutely agree with that. In fact, we have put that in our report on the issues.
But that isn't the argument that says one shouldn't address each of the issues that make up that spectrum. In fact, it says you have got to deal with all of the issues, such as advertising unhealthy products to children who are in a category. There are lots of studies showing how to influence children to consume or to want or to pester for certain products.
So the issue of advertising is one of the many factors that go into this total spectrum. Nobody on our committee would expect that dealing with one will eliminate all of the problem, but we have identified those things that we feel are the major components of the societal problem in this area, and we have a bill that comes forward that deals with advertising as one of the issues.
To take the example of the children's oven, as I understand it to be, which can only have one cupcake in it, this is an example of how advertising can easily deal with getting around issues. So you're not advertising cupcakes; you're advertising an oven. But what is it that the oven is showing? It's your example. It's a cupcake. When you look at the sugar content of cupcakes, they would be on one of the highest ends of readily available products. These are the issues that make up the whole area.
We also agree with you that advertising is a complex issue. It is not simple. But we have a bill before us that we are studying, and we have to come to a conclusion as to whether we think that bill is beneficial or we make recommendations. That's our role is to look at all those issues.
You have certainly very clearly and articulately brought up the issues you see from your end. Of course, that's why we wanted you here, to hear your comments and help us understand your perspectives.
On that note, I thank my colleagues for the questions they have put to you and the way in which you have answered and attempted to answer.
The final thing I'll mention is that one thing we are extremely weak on in this country is any national analyses of health issues. We have really good cancer statistics. It seems Canadians have managed to browbeat their political masters into dealing with cancer, its varieties and the frequency and the extent to which it occurs in society. But in most other areas of health, we simply don't have good figures. It's one of the handicaps we have when we try to deal with major health issues. In this committee, we have looked at a number of them, most recently dementia. There's another case where good statistics are not available in a critical area.
We do have common concerns with regard to moving forward, but we have to move forward into the future, and helping children develop healthy lifestyles is critical.
With that, I declare the meeting adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)