Bill C-460 (Historical)

Sodium Reduction Strategy for Canada Act

An Act respecting the implementation of the Sodium Reduction Strategy for Canada

The purpose of this enactment is
(a) to implement the Sodium Reduction Strategy for Canada;
(b) to establish the Sodium Reduction Advisory Committee, the mandate of which is to advise the Minister of Health on the progress made in implementing the strategy; and
(c) to require the amendment of the Food and Drug Regulations.

Sodium Reduction Strategy for Canada Act

[An hon. member]

Another $3 billion lost.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Another $3 billion that the Conservatives could recover. We are used to seeing the Conservatives lose billions of dollars.

When will the government implement a strategy to save billions of dollars and thousands of lives? We have the choice, but we need to make the right choice and we need to make it now. I repeat: excessive sodium intake is a serous public health issue, and it is too important for us to ignore. This could save lives.

Governments have had to pass laws to change how individuals and industries act. Take seat belts, for example. When they became mandatory in 1976, road fatalities dropped by 43%. That is unbelievable. Attitudes are hard to change, and sometimes the government has to try to force these changes in the name of public health and safety.

Another example would be drinking and driving or anti-smoking legislation. Prevention is no longer enough. The government has taken this approach for years to reduce sodium consumption in Canada.

This approach has been a huge failure for two reasons. First, it is very difficult for Canadians to analyze the ingredients on products they are purchasing so that they can make healthy choices. Second, food companies refuse to change their production methods. Right now, manufacturers are encouraged to reduce the amount of salt in their products voluntarily. This is in no way effective, because the food industry does not comply. The industry continues to say that sodium reduction targets are unrealistic.

Manufacturers are resisting because they are worried that consumers, used to the taste of salt, will go elsewhere. We understand their concerns. Manufacturers want to remain competitive at all costs. The food industry says it is impossible to reduce the amount of sodium because food safety would be affected.

That argument does not hold water, however. The fact that sodium levels in chain restaurants vary from one country to another is proof of that. Why do the amounts vary? Because the food industry has gotten Canadians used to foods that are much saltier here than elsewhere. I see no reason to keep it that way. Companies' concerns are unfounded. All of the experts agree. Consumers have the ability to adapt to the taste of food that is less salty, and it is up to the government to force that change.

The lack of legislation that is binding on the food industry also affects consumers. Making healthy choices is increasingly difficult. I spoke with Marie-Claude Jolicoeur and Manon Rousse, two nutritionists at the Suroît hospital in my riding. They confirmed that trend. They said that they meet with patients every day who need a low-sodium diet, including people with hypertension, heart failure, liver disease, kidney failure, diabetes and other diseases.

In all of those cases, a low-sodium diet is essential to effectively treating the disease. The nutritionists told me that their role is to teach people how to reduce their sodium intake by recommending which foods to avoid and suggesting alternatives. In reality, 80% of sodium intake comes from processed foods, not from salt. The nutritionists maintain that despite their good intentions, their patients have difficulty making healthy choices and adhering to a low-sodium diet.

That is especially true of seniors and the sick. They rarely cook and often rely on processed foods. Their health declines further, which increases costs for our health care system.

Even for those who are in good health and eat well, it is very easy to exceed the recommended intake. That is why the government needs to step in. Legislation that imposes limits on the amount of sodium in processed food is the only solution that will have the desired effect.

The government has demonstrated a blatant lack of leadership on this issue. Why did the Minister of Health dismantle the sodium working group? It does not make any sense. The government's inaction has forced the provinces and territories to take the bull by the horns and create their own sodium reduction strategies. The Conservative government needs to stop burying its head in the sand. The Department of Health Act clearly sets out that Health Canada is responsible for “the protection of the people of Canada against risks to health”.

Does high sodium intake not constitute a sufficient risk for the Conservatives? Do the resulting cardiovascular diseases not constitute a sufficient risk for the Conservatives? Do the billions of dollars in costs not constitute a sufficient risk for the Conservatives? Of course not. They are already $29 billion in the hole, and no one knows where that money went.

I think that, instead of subjecting us all to its austerity measures by cutting all the programs that Canadians value, each time that the government tables a budget that we are not even allowed to comment on, it should pass legislation that would allow us to really make economies of scale, not to mention save lives.

This is a major public health issue. I would even go so far as to say that we are facing a food safety crisis. Foods that are high in sodium are poisoning Canadians. It is imperative that we develop a strategy to put a stop to this trend. We need to think about the health of our children and the billions of dollars that our inaction is costing our health care system.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening intently and I have find it very interesting that we are going to set up a sodium control mechanism by registering the amount of sodium that goes into food. I wonder if the next thing is we will have trigger locks on all of our salt shakers on the table.

The NDP members want to have a sodium registry, but they want to decriminalize marijuana. They talk about health issues with sodium, but have they thought about the other issues that they bring forward? It seems they are sucking and blowing at the same time in relation to many of the policies they are behind.

It just does not seem to fit. In fact, I am wondering what is going to happen next after they control the amount of sodium that goes into products instead of just providing information and education. Maybe they are going to throw people in jail for testing too high on salt. Maybe we are going to have lineups of people being tested for salt. I am not sure. I just do not know where this ends.

The control mechanism those members want to force on consumers clearly indicates the disrespect they have for taxpayers and Canadians alike, thinking they cannot make their own decisions based on proper information.

We know for instance that on processed foods it is required to list the amount of sodium that is contained within those products. Therefore, consumers can go along, pick up a can when they are buying their groceries and see how much sodium it has. Then if they have a sodium issue, they can control the amount of sodium they take by being educated. As we know, just about all Canadians have the ability to read the labels.

The NDP wants to set up this mechanism, this highly regulated and expensive Canadian government registry that will have all of these products on the list and the amount of sodium in them. What are people going to do? Every time they want to go out to get a processed product, such as a bag of chips from the grocery store, will they have to run home and check the computer or take the information with them? Are the New Democrats trying to create more money for large cellphone companies? I am really not sure where they are coming from. I clearly think this is a disrespectful model to follow. It is wasteful, ineffective and will simply not work.

I would like to begin by reiterating the work the government is doing to address sodium intake in Canada because it is a serious concern. However, the NDP members say that it will lower health costs and yet they want to decriminalize something like smoking marijuana that would have such a high health cost to consumers. Their position just does not make sense.

I would like to talk about what the Canadian government is doing.

First, the sodium working group that my friend talked about recommended the government take a voluntary multi-stakeholder approach to reducing the amount of sodium found in foods in the Canadian market. I agree because Canadians are smart. They can feel their health. They see their doctors. We have a good medical system in our country. It does need some work, like most things, but one thing that does not need more work is a sodium registry. Clearly, this would not be good for Canadians and, as I said, I think it disrespects Canadians. It certainly disrespects the independent working group that was set up to find some solutions to the issue.

The government recognized the need for this comprehensive approach by setting up the group. It acknowledged the roles of industry, government and Canadians in working together to reduce sodium consumption. However, we must not do so through some draconian methodology that will, frankly, be very expensive and accomplish nothing except to penalize companies and consumers.

In particular, I would like to talk about the 90-day coming into force program. I know many people in this place have not been commercial printers, but I can promise them that a 90-day coming into force regime would not even enable companies to change the labelling fast enough if they were to reduce the amount of sodium. It would not allow them to change the product. These are products they have spent many years on in putting the perfect ingredients in, as they see it and consumers demand, and sodium is used as a preservative for some of these products.

What are we going to have with a 90-day coming into force? If the NDP had its way and if it were in government, it would have its way, we would find there would be nothing on the shelves. That is what it wants to do. It wants to control the lives of consumers, drive up taxpaying costs and disrespecting Canadians through this.

We have established a voluntary approach. It focuses on three main pillars. The first is awareness and education for consumers. It is clear that the Conservative government respects Canadians and respects the ability of Canadians to make proper choices.

The second pillar is the provision of guidance to the industry to reduce sodium in processed foods. This is a voluntary approach, but at the same time one that will make changes. We have seen this work in other areas, including the transportation industry, consumer groups and food safety issues. It does work and it works in such a way that industry members have an opportunity to do so in a consumer-minded and commercial-minded approach that makes sense and does not shut them down and take all of these processed foods off the store shelves.

The third pillar is proper research. This government has done a lot of investment in research and development, not just in the aerospace industry, not just in the transportation industry, not just in the criminal situation where we need to make sure we have proper laws that are not too draconian, but send criminals to jail because they have done wrong things and the public needs protection. Research is very important, especially in food safety and looking at consumers and consumers' patterns of eating, especially Canadians because we are a little different.

We have the far north and some other areas that frankly need to be more careful in relation to the amount of food they eat and what types of food they have. I highly recommend fresh fruits and vegetables and proper foods like that, regularly going to a marketplace and having the food come in every two or three days. Many European nations and other nations do this. They do not buy in large bulk like Canadians do and like we had to do as a result of our heritage. They buy regularly every day and that is why they have sometimes a much better source of food than we do in Canada.

Focusing on these three areas, we are clearly working to respect Canadians' views, but also to lower Canadians' sodium intake to 2,300 milligrams per day by 2016. This is an ambitious target, but by educating consumers and Canadians we can do that.

This is an approach that is already showing progress. We have had success in this area in meeting its target. As a result of that, in the small amount of time we have taken to do this, it shows that this government's approach is clearly working. Data recently collected from samples of breads, breakfast cereals and canned soups show that sodium levels have been reduced by about 10% overall in these products.

I find very interesting that the NDP members vote against, for instance, infrastructure projects and all the economic action plans that the Conservative government brought forward. They vote against jobs. They sent a delegation to Washington to shut down the oil sands industry, to shut down the jobs that Canadians are working in, to shut down the manufacturing industry in Ontario and Quebec that supplies somewhere in the neighbourhood of 40% to 50% of the jobs outside of Alberta that are working in the oil sands. It is shocking that they would try to shut down Canadian jobs, that they would vote against action plans to create employment and infrastructure and a higher quality of life in Canada, yet they want to control the amount of salt that Canadians eat. Quite frankly, it is ridiculous.

Bill C-460 unfortunately does not acknowledge the work that has already been done and the positive changes that are coming out. It just criticizes. I would like to focus today on the costs especially.

I know I do not have a lot of time because I have a lot to say about the bill because of the ludicrous nature of it. This would be a significant cost to taxpayers and how do we maintain that? Well, the government has to maintain it. The government has to maintain it on a continuous basis and keep it up-to-date. I think it would be underutilized, if at all utilized, by Canadians and would cost a lot of money. The only people who would actually know what is on the website, because those would be the only people able to use it, are government people who are inputting the data. I just do not think it makes sense.

By mandating the levels of sodium in food products, manufacturers would also be forced to reformulate their product in a very quick fashion. That is not how it works. Frankly, as I said before, they would end up pulling the product off the shelf until they could conform properly because it is an issue of food safety as well. They would be changing the products that go into their food because they would have to, as a result of the NDP bill. It would mean so many disruptions to Canadians' lives and accomplish absolutely nothing.

It is clear that Canadians made a choice in the last election. They voted for a Conservative government so that we can continue to operate as they want us to do, continue to respect Canadians, continue to allow them to make their own educated choices, but to make sure at the same time that they have the ability to understand what they are consuming and be able to understand what choices they are making.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my remarks will follow a proven formula based largely on the empirical nature of the matter before us.

In my analysis of the bill respecting the implementation of the sodium reduction strategy for Canada, I will focus on detailing the true impact and omnipresence of fast food and the hold that junk food lobby groups have over northern communities.

My remarks will be informed by my own experience and by the 2012 meeting with the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Olivier de Schutter, to which some of my colleagues and I were invited.

During the meeting, I made a point of providing certain documents and photographs to the United Nations representative. The photographs showed how some fast food lobby groups have a monopolistic hold over my own community.

At the risk of repeating myself, I come from a community located on the 52nd parallel, where food transportation costs are quite high. Oddly enough, some of the least healthful food products, such as soft drinks, are available for ridiculously low prices in my home community. One of the photographs I provided depicted the cost of soft drinks.

For example, a two-litre soft drink costs $.99 during heat waves in July, but a pint of milk costs about $4 or $5.

I mentioned soft drinks, but the same is true of products high in sodium, such as chips. It is a shame that this example comes up so often.

During my early university years, I worked for the parks service when I went home in the summer. I had to pick up trash from sandbanks—grass does not grow particularly well where I am from. I had to pick up trash, and most of the trash I saw was fast food packaging, especially chip bags.

As I have already said several times, children in my community enjoy an unusual degree of freedom. Unfortunately, there is a dark side to that. Young people with a few dollars in their pockets automatically spend their money on chips, soft drinks and cakes to feed themselves, because parental supervision is often lacking.

That is why some elementary school children are overweight and morbidly obese. This is a real problem in my community. It also explains why so many aboriginal people have health conditions with a high mortality rate. These conditions are associated with diabetes and fairly high blood glucose levels, among other things.

The spectre of diabetes hangs over the everyday lives of many aboriginal social groups and is inextricably linked to access to prepared foods. As I mentioned, the cost of these products is ridiculously low in my community.

However, I also took advantage of Mr. De Schutter's visit to mention the fact that beverages with a high alcohol content of 10% and 11% are sold in 1.2 litre quantities in my community. There is a very good chance that these beverages are sold to specific target markets and that lobby groups have done market studies and found that there was a very high demand for these products in aboriginal communities.

I doubt very much that the same type of product could be found in Westmount, for example. One might be able to find them in the east end of Montreal. These products are sold to specific target markets, and suppliers are well aware that there is a high demand for them in these communities. As a result, very powerful lobby groups will simply support the sale of these products at a low cost in my community.

The World Health Organization estimates that one-fifth of the deaths in high-income countries—nearly 48,000 deaths a year in Canada—are caused by preventable nutrition-related conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes and certain types of cancer, which result from a high sodium intake, high blood cholesterol and blood glucose levels, an insufficient intake of fruits and vegetables and excess abdominal fat.

Proportionately, these problems are much more common in aboriginal communities. The traditional diet of aboriginal peoples did not include processed and prepared foods.

Fifty or 60 years ago, the Innu and Naskapi, whose communities were north of the 52nd parallel, lived in the traditional way. They went into the forest and survived on game and food found there. Their diet did not include all the high-sodium, high-sugar prepared foods. That is why in 2013 we are seeing this deplorable situation. It is not in keeping with the traditional diet that the Innu and Naskapi are more or less adapted to.

Let me give you a personal example. I worked for my band council for two years. Every year, health care professionals met with community leaders, as well as officials and members of the community's administration. The health professionals set up seven or eight kiosks in the community hall. All band council employees had to undergo testing at each kiosk. They took blood, tested our glucose levels, measured our body fat, and assessed our VO2 Max. Basically, they tried to get an overall picture of everyone's health. Every employee had to do it.

I myself took all of these tests during my years on the band council. After undergoing all of these tests, a health care professional was happy to tell me that she was going to give me a medal at some point that day, because I was the only one who had achieved balanced test results.

This has many implications, especially considering that the band council had about 70 employees. That day, I was the big winner. I am not saying this to boast. I had to come clean and I told her that I was taking medication and pills to try to reduce my body mass index. They were non-prescription drugs and supplements. So, the test results were false. I had the same lifestyle as everyone else in my community and I did not eat well. I was aware of the problem. When I started eating a healthy diet, everything balanced itself out.

Despite some efforts that have been made by various food stakeholders in Canada in response to concerns linked to high sodium levels, it is up to government bodies to implement measures to reduce Canadians' daily sodium intake from 3,400 mg to 2,300 mg.

The 2,300 mg limit is applied automatically by many private entities that use this limit as a guideline. Some industry stakeholders and certain corporations in the food industry know that, although it may not be mandatory, limiting sodium intake is necessary to maintain balance and a healthy weight. They will automatically use that guideline even though it has not yet been implemented.

Yesterday, I was reading a report by the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association that mentioned these voluntary measures taken by certain industries, retailers and restaurant owners.

I submit this respectfully.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today at the end of the second hour of debate on Bill C-460 to have the last five minutes to respond to the debate.

First, I would like to thank all of the members on all sides of the House who have participated in this debate. Many members have participated with great passion and vigour, and certainly the issue before us is a very important one. In fact, I would argue that this is probably the most critical public issue that is facing us today.

It is very interesting to note that there has been an incredible amount of media attention on the need for sodium reduction. There are major articles in the press every day. It is something that is of great concern to many people in Canada.

I am looking at a recent article in The Globe and Mail, which says, “Health Canada's voluntary, unsupervised guidelines for the food industry aren't adequate to the task, say health experts and advocates”.

The article quotes Kevin Willis, the director of partnerships at the Canadian Stroke Network, who said:

We don't have data available in a transparent way that we can monitor that these changes are actually occurring. Government could require companies to make that information available so it can be verified. It's all part of the transparent monitoring process.

I have to say that in the development of this bill there has been an incredible amount of support across the country, and some of the organizations have been mentioned here in the debate today. I particularly want to thank Dr. Norm Campbell, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada CIHR chair in hypertension prevention and control, and Bill Jeffery, national coordinator for the Centre for Science in the Public Interest. These two individuals have been just incredible, both here on the Hill and in providing information, education and awareness. I think they have spoken volumes about the critical need to have this bill move forward at second reading.

I have listened to the arguments from the Conservative members, and I want to reiterate that this is actually a very straightforward bill. Again, this bill would implement the sodium reduction strategy that was developed not by me or by any member in this House, but by an expert working group in 2010. The purpose of this bill is to make sure that the guidelines and strategy that were devised are actually followed through.

As we have heard from many members in this House, the non-action, the pathetic lack of leadership from the government on the sodium reduction strategy and its disbanding of the sodium working group have really been quite shocking. As many people I have spoken to in the community and some organizations have told me, at one point Canada was the leader in the world, and other countries looked to Canada to take leadership. However, that situation has now been completely reversed. We are so far behind on this issue and on many other public health issues that it really is very disturbing.

In arguments we have heard today, in fact, we have heard members who wanted to ridicule the bill and make fun of it and come up with jokes. That was very perplexing. It makes me wonder if they know of the major organizations in support of this bill. They have done the research, they are the experts, and they believe this bill is sound. Do the Conservatives not understand that the Canadian public want to see the Canadian government take leadership?

Some members referred to a survey that was done. A very recent survey was done by the University of Toronto in March of this year. It tells us that 78% of Canadians support setting maximum sodium levels in food sold in grocery stores and that 76% agreed that warning labels and statements should be displayed so that people have the information they need.

I want to end by saying that other countries are doing what needs to be done. Recently South Africa announced that it is now going to require regulations for sodium reduction that have to be met by June 2016. Many other countries have taken much more significant action than Canada has.

At the end of the day, I think we have to ask ourselves a question: are we committed to the health of Canadians and to preventing the deaths that are now taking place? Will we ensure the health of Canadians in the future? If so, then this bill is one concrete measure that would allow that to happen.

I urge all members of the House to read the bill properly, to look at who is supporting it and to support it at second reading so that we can look at it in committee, where we can address any issues or concerns that may exist. I urge members to vote to support the bill in principle.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 2:30 p.m., the time provided for debate has expired.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 8, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

It being 2:32 p.m., the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:32 p.m.)