Would Senator Dasko take a question?

Thank you for your speech and for explaining the thinking at committee. I want to ask you about the process after the bill is passed in terms of developing the regulations for the monitoring of unsuitable advertising for children.

Has Health Canada already come up with the criteria around the thresholds for sodium, sugars, trans fats and so on, or is that something yet to be fully developed?

Thank you. You indicated that in at least one area, the industry code is deficient; I think it was the amount of sodium in cereals. Perhaps in other areas, the industry code is better aligned with Health Canada? I do not know. It is partly a question.

My bigger question is whether you see the prospect for industry to play a more active role in the crafting of those regulations and subsequently, perhaps, also in the implementation of some of the measures because regulation has a cost to it. It doesn’t come magically. The best kind of regulation involves industry to take some responsibility for the measures that the public sees as beneficial.

Could you comment on that?

Thank you, Senator Dasko, I have just one question.

At the end of your speech, you alluded to the fact that we should consider passing this relatively quickly because it had gotten unanimous consent over in the other place. I can’t disagree with that. However, what would your bar be? If there is one short of unanimity over there, you would still think we should also move the bill quickly or is it only if it is unanimous?

Thank you for that. I have no further questions other than to say that I wish that the Agriculture Committee was as enlightened as the Social Affairs Committee is.

Senator Dasko, I am delighted that Canada is following the example of Quebec on that issue. More seriously, I know you love data. Is there data to show that the experience in Quebec has had an impact on obesity or the health of kids? I know there are many factors to children’s health, but I wonder if we have any kind of data that could help us to say that this is the way to go. I believe, in terms of principles, that this is the way to go, but do we have any proof that it works?

Would Senator Dasko take another question?

At the beginning of the journey of this type of legislation, it is fair to say that 5, 10, 15 years ago, children were more likely to watch what we call linear television. As a Gen-Xer, I grew up watching Saturday morning cartoons and eating bad cereal. But these days, as the preamble to the bill notes, children rarely watch television anymore and consume primarily audio-visual material on platforms such as YouTube.

This bill went to the Social Affairs Committee and not to the Transport and Communications Committee. I wonder, because the bill is silent on this, how they intend to regulate advertising on social media and digital platforms, which is where most children today consume their entertainment.

You and I served together on Transport and Communications, so we know from our work on Bill C-11 that that is sometimes easier said than done.

Was there any explanation of how they intend to regulate, especially, as you mentioned, with English-language television in Quebec, that many of these streaming services are not within Canadian jurisdiction?

Senator Dasko, I listened to your argument with regard to this bill. It is interesting to see how the enlightened Social Affairs Committee was all unanimous, of course, on this particular piece of legislation. I would assume, and I hope, that you will show the same enthusiasm along with the other enlightened members and oppose the government’s initiative to remove the GST from junk food over the next two months. Would that be the case?

Honourable colleagues, I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-252, the child health protection act.

I want to thank Senator Dasko for her tireless work on this important bill. I’m proud to be connected to the work of former senator Nancy Greene Raine, an icon and role model in sport and in this place. Eight years ago, she recognized the need to be a voice for children, helping them to learn to make healthier choices with their nutrition, and hopefully that vision will be made into law soon.

I have been an advocate for the health and activity of Canadian children and youth for over 30 years. I fully support the passage of Bill C-252 as it directly addresses our collective responsibility to being trustworthy stewards of the health and well-being of our children.

Across Canada, children are constantly exposed to ads for unhealthy foods, products high in sugar, salt, unhealthy fats and ultra-processed foods. These ads are often designed specifically to captivate young audiences, using bright colours, beloved characters and catchy slogans to influence their preferences. These ads are shaping children’s choices before they even know that they are choices and have persistent consequences for their health.

Children under the age of 13 are particularly vulnerable to this type of marketing because they lack the critical skills to recognize that marketing tactics are even at play. They trust what they see on their screens, and their food choices reflect this influence. Research, including findings from the Senate Social Affairs Committee’s study on obesity, shows that marketing like this drives the consumption of unhealthy foods, contributing to the rising rates of childhood obesity, diabetes and other preventable diseases. If we are serious about protecting our children’s future, we must act to limit the marketing of unhealthy foods targeting those under 13 years of age.

Colleagues, let’s think of children’s nutrition as building a campfire. A strong, healthy fire requires the right balance of materials to get those hot embers going. First, we take some crumpled paper and kindling to ignite, then we take small and medium branches to stabilize and transfer that flame to the larger and sturdier logs that will provide long-term energy and warmth. If I try to build a fire with just paper and kindling, the fire is going to catch quickly, burn bright and then be out before any heat can be generated. I can keep adding paper and kindling hoping that the fire will grow — I know you’ve all done it — but the results will be the same: no real heat and no sustained energy.

Similarly, overloading a child’s diet with ultra-processed, unhealthy foods disrupts their growth and diminishes their vitality. Too much quick-burn energy leaves them hungry and craving more. Compare that to a balanced, healthy diet that provides a satiated feeling and sustained energy. A child’s diet needs a balance of nutrients, carbohydrates, proteins and healthy fats — all of which contain essential vitamins and minerals that fuel growth and cognitive development.

This doesn’t mean children should never have ingredients like sugar and can’t enjoy them for two weeks over the holiday. In my home, like most kids, my daughter loves a bowl of honey nut cereal for breakfast or a pack of sour patch candy as an afternoon snack. However, it’s important to approach unhealthy ingredient consumption with moderation while fostering healthy habits that contribute to a balanced lifestyle. Teaching children to make mindful food choices from an early age helps them to build a positive relationship with nutrition. How does a food make them feel? When do they know that they’ve had enough?

By setting clear boundaries and leading by example parents can empower their children to independently make healthier decisions as they grow, and this bill is key to that goal. It’s not just about limiting advertising, it’s about giving our next generation the tools to live healthy lives. Countries like the United Kingdom and Chile have already implemented similar measures with measurable success. By passing this bill, we can follow their lead and reduce preventable illnesses, ease the strain on our health care system in the long term and nurture a stronger, healthier generation.

As with any legislation, Bill C-252 has critics. These critics argue that the regulations could limit business freedoms and stifle creativity and innovation in the advertising industry. Others worry it could even restrict a food company’s ability to promote healthier products.

While I understand these concerns, I want to be clear: the purpose of this bill is not to restrict free enterprise and creativity. There is no reason why advertising healthy foods and lifestyles can’t be engaging and innovative. And, friends, walking down the colourful cereal or confection aisle will remain a parent-child gauntlet of negotiations, as will driving past the fast-food restaurant. The purpose is to ensure that marketing aimed at children cannot, without restriction, promote harmful products to children’s health.

Another concern is the fear of overregulation. Some argue that defining what constitutes unhealthy food could unintentionally limit choices that parents consider appropriate. However, this bill is not about dictating what children can or cannot eat; it is about limiting the overwhelming influence of unhealthy advertising.

Teaching a child to make balanced, nutritional choices is hard, as Senator Dasko said, and it takes time. These lessons are made even harder for parents and teachers when a child’s attention is drawn to professionally designed and targeted advertising. Parents, caregivers and teachers deserve a fair fight. This bill would help foster an environment that supports learning to make healthier choices.

Some believe this bill would not have the desired impact on children’s eating habits. And while no single solution can solve the problem of childhood obesity, this bill is an essential part of a larger strategy that includes promoting education, providing access to healthier food options and supporting community-based initiatives. Bill C-252 is a critical piece of the puzzle, but certainly not the only one.

At the Social Affairs Committee members heard from industry representatives about their new, self-regulatory code for advertising to children. With respect, relying on industry self-regulation to tackle this issue has proven ineffective. Professor Monique Potvin Kent from the School of Epidemiology and Public Health at the University of Ottawa testified that the new self-regulatory code is a poor imitation of Quebec’s Consumer Protection Act. She provided an example, showing how the new code allows marketing to children when their presence in the audience is less than 15%. These, my friends, are likely the most vulnerable children, by the way: kids who are not watching what most kids are watching. This contrasted sharply with Quebec’s model where child-targeted marketing is never allowed, regardless of the audience composition.

Professor Potvin Kent also pointed out that the health standards in the new code are inadequate, particularly when it comes to sugary cereals and fast food — which are often classified as healthier than they actually are — and the code lacks the compliance checks and enforcement mechanisms.

Colleagues, without proper enforcement or meaningful penalties, these industry-regulated guidelines fall short of offering real protection. Safeguarding our children’s health cannot be left to corporate goodwill; it requires strong, government-enforced regulation that prioritizes our kids’ long-term well-being.

I urge you, my colleagues, and all Canadians, to support this critical change. Together we can ensure that our children’s potential and energy burns brightly, fuelled by proper nutrition and free from manipulative marketing. The health and future of our children and the nation depend upon it. Thank you.

Honourable senators, it’s an honour to rise today to address one of the most critical responsibilities we have as legislators: the health and well-being of our children. Bill C-252, with the short title the “Child Health Protection Act,” represents a pivotal opportunity to take meaningful action to foster healthier, more fulfilling lives for the next generation.

I want to extend my heartfelt gratitude to member of Parliament Patricia Lattanzio and Senator Dasko for their unwavering commitment and leadership on this bill. I also want to thank the Social Affairs Committee for their thorough examination of the bill’s provisions, as well as the expert witnesses and Canadians who shared their insights, experiences and concerns with us. Their voices have been instrumental in shaping the case for this essential legislation.

At its core, Bill C-252 seeks to cease the marketing of unhealthy foods and beverages to children under the age of 13 years, such as products laden with high sugars, saturated fats and sodium. This is not merely about regulating advertising, colleagues; it is about placing the health of our children above the profit margins of multi-million-dollar industries.

Why is this bill so important? Canadians know that cultivating healthy lifestyle choices in children is foundational to long-term health and well-being; yet marketing tactics used to target young children are not just persuasive — they are exploitative. Young children lack the neurodevelopmental capacity to critically evaluate advertisements. They cannot distinguish between marketing ploys and the actual nutritional value of a product. This makes them uniquely vulnerable to manipulative advertising designed to encourage unhealthy choices. The evidence is stark and undeniable.

During committee discussions we heard from Professor Potvin Kent, who shared insights from her recent study funded by the World Health Organization. This study revealed that children from 6 to 17 years of age are exposed to a staggering 4,000 food and beverage advertisement annually during just 30 minutes of daily mobile device use. Even worse, 87% of the products advertised fail to meet the Health Canada nutritional standards.

When combined with exposure to television, radio, outdoor billboards and retail displays — not to mention social media — the total number of advertisements becomes staggering. Even the most vigilant parents tirelessly promoting healthy eating are clearly outmatched by the relentless barrage of industry-driven marketing.

Professor Charlene Elliott from the University of Calgary referred to the Consumer Protection Act in Quebec, saying:

. . . it was premised on the basis that very young children could not recognize advertising intent. It is, per se, manipulative to market to them.

This insight underscores the ethical urgency of addressing the issue at hand today, colleagues. Professor Elliott’s research reveals that from 2009 to 2023, targeted marketing to children has not only increased, but, alarmingly, 97.5% of the products advertised to our children fail to meet Health Canada nutritional guidelines. Such advertisements promote higher levels of sugar, sodium and saturated fats and are purposely designed to influence young, vulnerable and impressionable minds.

Colleagues, I don’t have to say this to you, but this is clearly unacceptable.

Dr. Tom Warshawski from the Childhood Healthy Living Foundation highlighted the epidemic of overweight children and adolescents, emphasizing the role of targeted advertisements in driving the surge in obesity tied to diabetes, high cholesterol and hypertension. While these issues aren’t caused by advertising alone, it is undeniable that all unhealthy food and beverage ads significantly influence children’s choices, pushing them to crave and consume more unhealthy foods. The $1.1 billion spent annually on targeted advertising is a major driver of those concerning trends, and it’s time we recognize its harmful impacts and take action.

Type 2 diabetes, once virtually unheard of in children, has now reached epidemic levels, with Indigenous communities disproportionately affected. Indigenous families are increasingly targeted by advertisements for unhealthy food and beverages, contributing to poor nutritional choices and a higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes. A staggering 85% of Indigenous women are expected to develop type 2 diabetes in their lifetime, a statistic that highlights the long-term effects of unhealthy dietary habits formed early in life.

Hypertension — or high blood pressure, as we also know it — is also becoming increasingly common in children. It threatens not only heart health but also cognitive development and academic success. Unhealthy fat levels are placing even young children at risk of long-term cardiovascular diseases.

The consequences of poor nutrition are no longer confined to future health problems; children are already suffering from these conditions, underscoring the urgent need for action.

Colleagues, you may be wondering why Bill C-252 is necessary when the Association of Canadian Advertisers’ Code and Guide for the Responsible Advertising of Food and Beverage Products to Children already exists. This code, established in 2021 and revised in 2023, recognizes children as “. . . a special audience . . . .” and restricts the advertising of foods high in fat, sodium and sugars to children under 13 years of age. While the code is a step in the right direction, it falls short of what is needed to protect our children from the pervasive influence of unhealthy food advertising. Industry stakeholders attest that the code is mandatory; however, it is presented to the public as a self-regulatory guide. Also, in their descriptions of the code, industry websites and documents have pervasively used very permissive language by any standard. They use words like “can,” “may,” “voluntary” and “self-regulatory,” with no mention of the code’s supposedly mandatory nature.

Additionally, through consultation with industry stakeholders, the committee determined that the complaints-based supervision of the code by members of a voluntary organization, Ad Standards Canada, has led to no complaints being filed so far. In the case that a complaint is filed, there is no standardized process in place to determine consequences for the offending agent, and there are no monetary penalties. This leaves companies without real incentive to follow the code, even if they claim to. In fact, Professor Monique Potvin Kent presented evidence to the committee that companies that claim adherence to the code have committed more infractions than many that have not.

Given the lack of monitoring and regulation surrounding the code, there is no evidence to support the notion that the code is currently working. Thus, regulation on a federal level is necessary, because we cannot wait in the hopes that this voluntary code might somehow become successful.

Bill C-252 is better than the voluntary code. It will enshrine in law a clear legislative prohibition on advertising to children. Along with other regulations being proposed by Health Canada, Bill C-252 will open the door for robust monitoring and enforcement, including financial penalties, which the industry itself acknowledges it cannot levy.

The code, as it stands, does not identify children as vulnerable, voiceless or in need of protection. It simply identifies children as “. . . a special audience . . . .” But what does that mean? Further, there is no mention of children’s health in the code, and that is astonishing. The industry will always consider their bottom line above the needs of Canadian children and youth.

Despite evidence that Quebec’s advertising ban led to no stifling of economic activity, industry stakeholders remain concerned about the economic impact of this bill. However, we cannot allow profit motives to take precedence over the health of our children.

Colleagues, will the passing of this bill lead to the eradication of childhood obesity? Likely, it will not. It is well understood that the cause of this disease is multifactorial, and I’m not arguing against that. However, I believe the bill will reduce the amount of unhealthy food that Canadian children are consuming. It will make it easier for parents to steer their children toward healthier foods because they won’t have to compete with dynamic and colourful advertising presented quite deliberately to our children.

Through children consuming less unhealthy food, there will be a decrease in childhood obesity, diabetes, hypertension and high cholesterol. It will make our children healthier, and they will grow into healthier adults.

Even if you don’t agree with me, I want to put these questions forward: Are you certain of the efficacy and performance of the current industry code such that you are willing to risk the health and well-being of millions of Canadian children by opposing Bill C-252? Are you that certain that the voluntary code will do a better job than legislation?

Colleagues, Canadian children have an inherent right to be protected. This bill provides an opportunity to protect our children against exploitive marketing practices and prioritize their current and future health and well-being. The science is unequivocal.

The time to act is now. I urge you to fully support Bill C-252 and stand with Canadian families in creating a healthier future for our children.

Honourable colleagues, thank you for your time in hearing my perspective and for all your hard work in moving this bill through the Senate. I look forward to hearing from others and seeing this bill become law. Thank you, meegwetch.