Debates of May 3rd, 2013

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. I am not sure if that line of commentary is particularly related to the question that is before the House.

Questions and comments. I see there is lots of interest, so I would ask members to keep their interventions brief.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Labour was speaking, I noticed that she referred to training dollars for first nations.

I know the member for Winnipeg Centre has a lot of knowledge around employment and the skills required for first nations. We know that in this country many first nations youth are simply not employed.

I wonder if the member could comment on the lack of action in this particular budget implementation bill in providing meaningful skills and training to first nations.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan for that very relevant question. I appreciate the work she has done on the file as our representative on the aboriginal affairs file.

The unemployment rate among aboriginal youth in my province and in many places across the country can be as high as 50% or 60%, four or five times higher than the already high unemployment rate for youth. There are communities in northern Manitoba where the unemployment rate is 85% to 90%. There is a vast pool of youth between 16 and 25 who, with an opportunity, could make a meaningful entrance into the workforce.

When I was head of the carpenters union, we did make an outreach effort specifically to go up and do some training in northern Manitoba because we had hydro dams going there. Believe me, a lot of the apprentices we signed in the aboriginal apprenticeship initiative found really satisfying careers in the construction industry. It is not a bad segue into the industrialized workforce, the construction and building trades.

It is hard work, and they are no strangers to hard work, growing up in the north. It is the high school kids from downtown Winnipeg who have a tough time getting into the construction industry, because it is hard work. These guys think it is easy money. For those who spent their life splitting wood and hauling fish nets in the wintertime, construction is easy money.

We are missing the boat by not matching the skills shortages that everybody knows about in the construction industry and the human resources surplus that is under our nose. Surely it is cheaper to train a kid from Pukatawagan than it is to fly them in from Lebanon or Southeast Asia or wherever these other temporary foreign workers are coming from. For God's sake, it is completely counterintuitive.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a great privilege today to speak on a good economic action plan. However, I do not think anybody in this House, including those from our side, would say that it is perfect. There are not such perfect things at this point, but in view of what we are dealing with, it is a good plan, it is a decent plan, and it takes us ahead. When we compare it to what the others would offer, it is probably a great plan.

I want to start by talking about the fiscal side. That said, I think we all realize right away that the fiscal side involves the human side, and there is an integral kind of connection, a coherent kind of approach to it in our budget this year. Therefore, I will talk about the fiscal side and the compassionate Conservative side by way of some of the social side as well.

First of all, I want to note, as other members in this place already have, that this budget, in a very considerable way, wants to connect Canadians with available jobs. It is pretty important that we do that. Instead of giving a handout, as some people say, we give a hand up, which increases human dignity and builds people. It is a pretty important thing to be doing just from a human perspective.

We are also, as someone has said and is often repeated in this place, teaching a person to fish and not just giving them a fish by way of the Canada skills grant, which would provide some $15,000 or more per person, which would be combined with some provincial monies and the employer funding as well.

I met today here on Parliament Hill with a representative from the chemical association, who was commending this particular feature. For that industry, it is pretty important to be able to increase and bring people from apprenticeships to journeymen, and he sees the Canada skills grant as a very important way of doing that. Also, in relation to strengthening the apprentice system, he remarked as well that growing out of the Canada skills grant, it will do that. It will make it easier to get the needed experience for journeyman status.

In terms of expanding the pie, that is a pretty necessary thing. If we are just looking at the status quo and thinking we do not need any more journeymen because we are not figuring to advance and progress and expand beyond our borders, then of course some would say that there would be some fights over journeymen and the journeymen coming on. However, we are looking beyond. We realize that to hold our own we need to do that. We need to have strength in the apprenticeship system.

We are supporting job opportunities as well as providing tools for persons with disabilities, who often are not looked at as part of the labour force when we are wanting to bring people on stream to have the opportunities that others do.

As well, for our youth, getting that first job is a pretty important thing. In my province of Saskatchewan, there is a burgeoning birth rate among the aboriginal people, and many of these young people deserve jobs, as does any other Canadian. They will be the future workforce in the province of Saskatchewan in a big way, particularly in the resource sector up in the north, where there are high-paying jobs close to their home communities and close to these first nations settlements. That will be a great thing in that they can stay even closer to family and have good-paying jobs to support themselves, their families and others as well.

Also, there is the matter of helping recent immigrants find a job when we allow them into our country and bring them here. Most of us are immigrants in some fashion, I might say. We need to provide more than just a promise of a dream and a better tomorrow and a bright future by putting some actual steps to it and supporting them in job opportunities so we can fill the labour shortages and have the economy carry on because of that.

Those are some of the initial things that strike me as really important in our budget in connecting Canadians with available jobs in parts of the country.

For example, in Saskatchewan, my own home province, there is a great deal of prosperity and success these days, but there is a labour shortage. For those reasons, this budget strikes to my heart because of the need in my own backyard, my own riding of Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, where we have seen a 15% growth over the last few years since census indications and change of boundaries and so on. Because of that, we need to ensure that we are filling those needs, and the labour market needs to respond to that.

Also, I think that the long-term infrastructure plan is wise. There are things the private sector should and can be doing, but in terms of critical infrastructure, there is a vital role that government can play. Therefore, we have a new long-term infrastructure plan with over $70 billion over 10 years for a new building Canada plan.

Some of these figures have been cited before: $32.2 billion over 10 years for a community improvement fund; $14 billion for a new building Canada fund; $1.25 billion for the renewal of the P3 Canada; and $6 billion under current infrastructure programs for provinces, territories and municipalities in 2014-15 and beyond.

There is the matter of investing in world-class research and innovation. Taking it directly into the workplace, as well, is quite crucial. We are doing that by way of advanced research, supporting business innovation and enhancing Canada's venture capital system.

I am going to talk in a few moments about the support for families and communities in our budget. I also want to talk about helping small businesses succeed, the heart and engine of the economy, and medium and larger-sized businesses as well, and some of the things we have done there.

We are providing tax relief for manufacturers, helping small businesses expand, with $225 million to extend and expand the temporary hiring credit for small businesses for one year; increasing the lifetime capital gains exemption to $110 million over five years, by increasing the lifetime capital gains exemption to $800,000 for small business owners, farmers and fishers, and indexing that new limit to inflation going forward; and supporting mining exploration. Canada has a great deal of natural resources, so we need to key in and capitalize on that.

I want to read part of an email sent to me by one of my good constituents, a lady in Blaine Lake, Saskatchewan. She makes a good argument against socialism in the story and how we need to continually fight that back for the good of all Canadians. She stated:

A previous Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. John Diefenbaker, once said the poor cannot be helped by pulling down the rich. The middle class and the rich people have the businesses—

She is a business lady herself:

—that need people to keep them viable, thus providing them with a living to support their families and communities. These middle class and rich people often encourage employees to begin their own businesses thus ensuring the cycle will continue. I personally have seen that happen in my lifetime.

When governments decide to enter the realm of business it takes tax dollars to keep the businesses going. We have been down this road before during the time of Pierre Elliott Trudeau and it was a disaster.

She lived through that era. This was from a good constituent in Blaine Lake.

She also sent me an article titled, “Is this man a genius?”. It is about the follies and problems of socialism. Members have probably heard this. The article states:

IS THIS MAN A GENIUS?

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on [socialism]'s plan”.. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars--something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.... These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

God forbid that we would ever come to that. The NDP proposal seems to be pretty much along that line.

I will have to address some of the other things in the following questions, which I am looking forward to at this juncture.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that proves that, for the Conservatives, it is all about the ideology and not the content.

I will talk about the content of the budget, because that is what we are supposed to be talking about today. The Conservatives are good at messaging, but not at taking action. That is what we are seeing once again in this budget.

I will give an example that pertains to tax evasion. We often hear the Conservative members say that we must fight tax evasion and bring the money home.

There are cuts at the CRA, but it is being asked to do more. How are we going to fight tax evasion with fewer resources?

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about a few measures in the budget that would, in fact, help families avoid taxes and seniors avoid taxes. I think there are some very good things along that line.

In supporting families, we have enhanced the adoption expense tax credit to better recognize those unique costs, so that there would be some avoidance of tax that way. There are measures for expanding tax relief for home care services to include personal care services for those who, due to age, infirmity or disability, require assistance at home; enhancing the funeral and burial program for Canadian veterans; supporting palliative care services; and combatting family violence. These are some of the good initiatives in the budget that would help people to pay less tax, and that is always a good thing for Canadians.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that the member's speech was rather pitiful.

I disagree with him and would suggest that he read the delightful letter written by American multi-billionaire Warren Buffet that was published in The New York Times at the beginning of the year. That letter would show the member how the world really works. It is nothing like the caricature he presented in his speech.

I want to talk about what is really happening. At the beginning of the year, I went to a reception at the Port of Québec and met a local businessman. He told me that the business community needs recognition from government.

It is incredible that after seven years of Conservative government, the business community still feels neglected and ignored by this government.

By the way, I would like to say that things are going well in and around Quebec City. Unemployment sits at about 5%. It is a very vibrant region, much like the prairie provinces.

Billions of dollars are sitting idle in Canadian companies because of this government, which has made some terrible decisions. That is the equivalent of about $25,000 per family that is not circulating, not creating jobs and not increasing the competitiveness of Canadian companies here and abroad. Could he comment on that?

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we have done some great things for businesses. I talk to businesses all the time. They commend us for the kinds of things that we have done with respect to them, helping them succeed and grow our global economy. Within the budget documents, which I think they have received in French and English, we talk in terms of the budget initiative of providing tax relief to manufacturers, some $1.4 billion in tax relief, through a two-year extension of the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance for new machinery and equipment. Small businesses are pretty impressed with the fact of helping small business expand by way of extending and expanding the temporary hiring credit for businesses for up to one year, and increasing the lifetime capital gains exemption.

That is a huge thing that is supported by the business community, as well. When we have that kind of thing where, for manufacturers, for business, for small business, and so on, there is an opportunity to expand, it actually means jobs, and the NDP needs to understand that, jobs that then would give people the opportunity to support their families. A job builds a person. It would actually build an individual because they would have the dignity of a job. That is what we have tried to do as a keynote throughout the budget.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before I recognize the hon. member for Chatham-Kent—Essex on resuming debate, I will just let him know we only have about two minutes left before the interruption.

However, he can get under way, at least, and he will of course have the remaining time when the House gets back to business on this question.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak to the budget implementation, creating jobs, growth and long-term prosperity for Canadians.

I have just a couple of minutes to introduce my speech and I will do that by giving a little history lesson, talking about what happened in the past, where we are today, why the bill is so significant and why this has been a process rather than just another budget.

In 2009 we experienced the global meltdown we all remember so vividly. Some would call it a recession, but in some places in the world it is called a depression. It was definitely the worst thing that happened to our economics in this country and around the world since the Great Depression. In 2009 our government introduced Canada's economic action plan in response to the near-global collapse that took place. This plan sought to stabilize Canadian markets and restore financial security and stability.

I do not have time to go through my whole history lesson, but the International Monetary Fund urged that all countries in a position to do so inject fiscal stimulus of 2% of gross domestic product to reduce the effects of a damaging recession. Of course, this meant deficit spending over a period of time until the markets returned to normal. Canada was part of that.

We have made some important and right decisions in the past. Since 2006, for instance, the average family of four pays $3,400 less in taxes than it did previously. Today we see that, and it is a result of decisions taken in 2006.

My time is up. I will pick up where I have left off on Monday.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Chatham-Kent—Essex will have eight minutes remaining for his remarks when the House next returns to the question.

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from February 1, consideration of the motion that Bill C-460, An Act respecting the implementation of the Sodium Reduction Strategy for Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Sodium Reduction Strategy for Canada Act

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, World Salt Awareness Week falls between March 11 and 17. However, unlike last year, there does not appear to be a record on Health Canada's website of the Minister of Health issuing a statement on the importance of reducing salt in the diet of Canadians. That is perhaps because of the fear of potential blowback for the Conservative government's killing of this important bill, which would implement the recommendations of the previous Conservative health minister's sodium working group.

The minister's reason for killing the bill is, wait for it, not a $21-billion tax but a $48-billion tax. Perhaps the government would be good enough to table, for all members of this House, who did the calculations for the tax, the method that was used and the results obtained. Perhaps, at the same time, the government would also table the health costs of chronic diseases that are linked to consuming too much salt.

In her statement on salt last year, the Minister of Health said:

On average we eat more than double the amount we need for good health.... It is important for Canadians to remember that consuming too much sodium is a risk factor for high blood pressure, heart disease and stroke and is also linked to other diseases such as stomach cancer, osteoporosis and kidney disease.

She continued:

As Minister of Health, I want to help Canadians avoid these health risks by promoting the adoption of a healthy diet that is low in sodium.

Therefore, it is clear that the minister understands the problem, yet thinks it is funny to say the bill is “...tough on potato chips”. It is not funny to a family struggling to control blood pressure, and not funny to a family battling heart disease or stroke. More distasteful still is the fact that once again she is prepared to put industry before the health of Canadians. Specifically, the minister is refusing to reduce the average sodium intake from about 3,400 milligrams per person per day to 2,300 milligrams by 2016. Health Canada's own recommended daily intake level for sodium is just 1,500 milligrams. The minister's own sodium working group estimated that a decrease in the average sodium intake to about 1,800 milligrams per day, still above Health Canada's recommendation, would prevent 23,500 cardiovascular disease events every year, and would save $1.4 billion per year in health care costs.

The Minister of Health is also refusing a consumer education campaign, a monitoring plan and public database to track if individual food products meet specific reduction targets, and new regulations to force companies to use uniform serving sizes and the nutritional facts on food. Why did this health minister disband the sodium working group at the end of 2010? Why did the minister fail to endorse a federal-provincial sodium reduction plan at the health ministers' meeting in Halifax in November 2011? Why is this minister ignoring the overwhelming scientific evidence?

The reality is that this private member's bill is supported by the Canadian Medical Association and 40 other groups and experts, including: the Canadian Institute of Child Health; Canadian Nurses Association; Canadian Pharmacists Association; Canadian Public Health Association; Canadian Society of Internal Medicine; Canadian Women's Health Network; Dieticians of Canada; Food Secure Canada; Hypertension Canada; Kidney Foundation of Canada; and Public Health Physicians of Canada.

The Canadian Medical Association stated:

The Sodium Reduction Strategy for Canada Act is an important piece of legislation that can lead to healthier lives for all Canadia2 Parliament support it.

The Canadian Medical Association also very clearly stated:

Canadians consume on average 3,400 milligrams of sodium daily, well above recommended levels. High sodium levels in food are responsible for almost one-third of hypertension cases in Canada. Hypertension is a major cause of heart disease (heart attack and heart failure), stroke and kidney failure, and is an important contributor to premature death, disability and health care costs in Canada. It is estimated that 7.5 million Canadians have been diagnosed with this chronic condition, with an estimated 1,100 new patients being added every day.

Dr. Norm Campbell, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research chair in hypertension prevention and control, said:

The bill provides concrete measures for reducing the amount of salt food processors add to food. The measures proposed in the Bill include close government monitoring and oversight and mandatory labelling of foods that fail to comply with sodium targets. If passed, Bill C-460 will for the first time provide Canadians an opportunity to even know if they are even making a healthy or unhealthy food choice.

Canadians should be asking broader questions. Why did the minister quash trans fats recommendations in 2009 and again in 2012? Why did she ignore the advice regarding caffeinated energy drinks? Why did the minister immediately shoot down the idea of the Institute of Medicine's report, sponsored by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, calling for a fundamental shift in the way companies were allowed to present certain nutritional information on the front of food packages? Where is the leadership?

It is outrageous that the government would resort to invoking fear in Canadians to kill this bill. We heard from a government member who said:

—the bill would pose many challenges. While unintentional, implementing the bill may potentially have negative impacts on food safety and health; I repeat, negative impacts on food safety and health.

The member suggested that reducing salt and sodium-containing food additives to levels still higher than Health Canada's own recommended limits might affect preservation.

The member did not stop there, saying, “The bill simply does not anticipate the food safety consequences that this could create”.

Equally ludicrous is the government's argument that a warning label for sodium could be very misleading to Canadians, even though the government's own approach has been to encourage healthy eating through positive messaging, awareness and education activities.

I would like to finish by bringing some reality to the government's position and arguments.

On average, adult Canadians consume about 3,400 milligrams of sodium per day. This is significantly above recommended levels. Health Canada and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences have determined that the tolerable upper intake level for adults is 2,300 milligrams of sodium per day. Of most of the sodium Canadians consume, 77% comes from processed foods sold in grocery stores and in food service outlets. Only about 11% is added during preparation at the table, with the remainder occurring naturally in foods, hence, showing the fundamental flaw in the parliamentary secretary's comments regarding a salt shaker.

In some people, too much sodium causes blood pressure to rise. High blood pressure increases risks for heart disease and stroke. About six million adult Canadians have high blood pressure or hypertension, the leading risk for death in the world, the number one risk factor for stroke and a major risk factor for heart disease.

It has been estimated that excess sodium intake is responsible for one million hypertension cases in Canada today. Dietary sodium reduction could eliminate hypertension for over a million Canadians, with a resulting savings of at least $430 million annually in direct high blood pressure management costs alone.

A recent study in the United States shows reducing salt intake by three grams per day would save the country up to $24 billion in health care costs a year. Even a modest reduction of one gram per day between 2010 and 2019 would be more cost-effective than using medications to lower blood pressure in people with high blood pressure.

Is it not time that Canada's Minister of Health acted, not ignored experts and stonewalled?

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Health ate All-Bran this morning, she ingested six times more salt than if she had filled her bowl in the United States.

This evening, if the minister stops at Burger King on her way home, which I do not recommend, her onion ring will contain three times more salt than one of Uncle Sam's. Why? Because Canadian regulations are just not good enough when it comes to sodium.

The Minister of Health said that my party is “soft on crime and hard on chips”. I would like to point out that, according to Statistics Canada, there were 598 homicides in Canada in 2011. If we can reduce Canadians' daily sodium intake to just 1,800 milligrams, we will be able to prevent between 10,000 and 16,000 deaths every year. Obviously, we cannot put chips in jail. The Conservatives would be well advised to reconsider their approach, just as they have done for crime.

Canadians are asking us for smart, effective regulation. That is exactly what Bill C-460 has to offer. I hope that the Conservatives care about Canadians' health enough to support the bill.

The Minister of Health has accused us of trying to introduce more red tape. I do not see how a government that loses track of $3 billion spent on anti-terrorism legislation can deny the importance of a strict regulatory framework. This is not about adding more red tape. This is about saving lives and helping Canadians live longer lives among their loved ones.

Three billion dollars. That is how much money the Conservatives managed to lose between the couch cushions. Coincidentally, that is also exactly how much money Canada would save if we reduced daily sodium intake to 1,500 milligrams. Why slash people's retirement income when it is so easy to save money by investing in their health?

Salt is everywhere. Now that Canadians have to work more than ever to make ends meet because of ill-advised Conservative cuts that are slowing our economy down, they have to eat salt in restaurants, frozen meals and cafeterias. All of the prepared food we buy every day because we do not have time to cook is full of salt. It would be cheap and easy to address this problem by forcing companies to label foods as high in sodium.

That is exactly what Bill C-460 is proposing, and that would of course have a positive impact on the market.

This bill is very sensible. It is not rooted in a political agenda, but rather in recommendations by experts, particularly recommendations provided by the Sodium Reduction Strategy for Canada, published by a working group set up in 2007, but which was dismantled by the current minister in 2011. Was the working group too bureaucratic?

The minister must have known that the strategy was supported by the provinces, territories and health organizations. The government must stop making budget cuts everywhere and start doing what a government is elected to do, which is to serve the public.

People are asking us for a tough policy to force companies to reduce sodium levels and inform consumers properly.

A recent survey shows that 76% of Canadians want warning labels on products that are high in sodium. That is almost twice the number of people who elected the Conservatives in the last election. A majority of Canadians agree that government intervention is needed to reduce the sodium levels in our food.

Sometimes it is funny to see how much the Conservatives hide behind their open market ideology when they do not want to disturb the agri-food industry, and how heavy-handed they can be when it comes to stealing from the unemployed.

Where do the Conservatives stand? Are they tough on people and soft on industry? Canadians are not fools. They want what is being done elsewhere and what is being recommended by all the proper authorities.

Finland is a good example because it has been regulating salt consumption since 1979. Through simple labeling, Finland has managed to convince a number of companies to reduce the amount of sodium in their products, which has helped citizens become more aware of what they are consuming. The outcome is that, in 1979, the average daily sodium intake dropped from 5,000 mg to 3,300 mg.

Since 2004, the World Health Organization has issued a number of reports and held many forums on the importance of reducing sodium. In 2010, the World Health Organization met with the government, but clearly the WHO did not get the attention it needed. The UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Olivier De Schutter, criticizes Canada in his report that followed his May 2012 visit.

According to Mr. De Schutter, Canada is not doing enough to discourage the consumption of foods high in saturated fat, sugar and sodium. He even added that it was unfortunate that Quebec is the only province to ban advertising directed at children under the age of 13.

How did the Prime Minister respond? He called the man a lazy intellectual and said his findings were ridiculous. Given their tendency to mock the most reliable multilateral organizations in the world and to refuse to listen to what Canadians want, the Conservatives could very well wind up all alone in their tiny ideological universe.

It is time to put an end to this schizophrenic governance and start operating like a democratic government. That is why I invite all members across the floor to support Bill C-460, which will finally allow Canada to show some leadership in the fight against sodium.

In closing, I would remind the House that malnutrition causes nearly 50,000 deaths a year in Canada, 20 times more than the number of deaths on our roads. After the fight against tobacco use, the fight against sodium is the most direct and effective way to reduce preventable deaths in Canada—yes, I said “preventable”.

Our brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, children and even grandparents will enjoy better, longer lives if we all support Bill C-460. That is what Canadians expect from their House of Commons, and they deserve nothing less.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the opposition's Bill C-460, an act respecting the implementation of the sodium reduction strategy for Canada.

I am also pleased to speak to our government's efforts, which are already starting to work, to address sodium reduction, as it is an important issue to all Canadians. Our government is fully committed to working with our stakeholders to reduce the average amount of sodium that Canadians consume.

However, we cannot support the heavy-handed approach to sodium reduction as proposed in Bill C-460. The approach to sodium reduction creates unnecessary red tape and additional financial costs to the taxpayers that may also result in unintended risks in food safety.

I will be walking through some of the highlights of how the measures proposed in this bill compare to the actual recommendations of the sodium working group and to the actions our government has taken with respect to sodium reduction.

I think it is important to highlight that the sodium working group recommendations were pan-Canadian recommendations. Pan-Canadian, in this context, means the recommendations were addressed to all levels of government, and even to individuals.

I would point out that Bill C-460 has excluded the province of Quebec. As was highlighted in the first hour of debate on this bill, it would seem rather impractical and costly to try to impose mandatory labelling requirements on the food industry to only selected parts of the country.

This side of the House wonders why it is only Quebec that is spared the heavy-handed provisions of this bill. If Quebec would benefit from an exemption from the bill, why not the rest of Canada? The experts did not recommend that Quebec be exempted. They recommended a pan-Canadian approach, which is what our government is pursuing. The experts also recommended a voluntary approach. The call for mandatory compliance with guidance levels as described in the bill stands in direct contrast to the working group's recommendations.

A voluntary approach is what we have in place now, with guidance for the food industry on reducing sodium in processed foods. The guidance provides direction to the food industry to continue with the sodium reduction efforts and help Canadians lower their average sodium intake.

The guidance, which provides specific benchmark levels for over 100 categories of processed foods, directly supports one of the working group's core recommendations, and that was to reduce the average amount of sodium consumed by Canadians from 3,400 milligrams per day to 2,300 milligrams per day, by 2016. Our government, along with provincial and territorial governments, endorsed this recommendation back in September 2010.

The bill also proposes that consumers be alerted to additional mandatory labels on packaged foods with sodium content that is above “target levels”. Again, this is not one of the recommendations of the working group, and for good reason. By focusing on a warning label just for sodium, Canadians could be misled into believing that sodium is the only nutrient about which they need to be educated. It is overall diets that have the greatest impacts on health, not any one food or nutrient.

This government has developed a number of tools to help Canadians make informed decisions about the foods they eat. This includes mandatory nutrition labelling for most packaged foods. There are also set criteria for phrases such as “low in sodium”, “salt-free” and “reduced in sodium”. These phrases can be used on food labels to help consumers identify foods that are lower in sodium.

Our government has invested $4 million for new activities as part of the healthy eating and awareness initiative. The goal is to help Canadians move towards healthier diets, which includes supporting them in reducing sodium intake.

The sodium working group recognized the importance of engaging all stakeholders, as does our government. However, this bill has overlooked this critical component of a strong sodium reduction strategy. Governments, Canadians and industry have important roles to play.

This bill proposes the establishment of an independent sodium reduction committee that excludes the food industry from the committee. This exemption would limit the successive activities already in progress and undermine the spirit of the working group's recommendations.

What we currently have in place is the food expert advisory committee. This committee has been extended to ad hoc members with expertise in areas of sodium to provide advice to this government on sodium issues. Members include some members from the former sodium working group, as well as some new experts.

Finally, the bill proposes that industry be required to report the sodium content in prepackaged food so that a public registry of this information could be established and maintained. We have heard about registries before. As has been previously stated, this registry would be ineffective. The cost to taxpayers to implement these measures would be significant. Maintaining a public registry for the 100,000 prepackaged food products sold in Canada would require considerable new resources and additional regulations and red tape. Again, this bill's proposed sodium registry was not recommended by the sodium working group.

Before I summarize, I want to point out that budget 2012, which both opposition parties voted against, contained measures which were in fact recommended by the working group and the red tape reduction committee. Both called for a streamlined approval for food additives, and budget 2012 delivered. I would point out that the opposition did not support those proposals.

Mr. Speaker, please allow me to summarize. The bill unnecessarily regulates mandatory sodium limits in prepackaged food. This is not consistent with the working group's recommendations. Our government is advancing a voluntary approach to sodium reduction, just as the working group recommended. The bill calls for misleading warning labels on foods that exceed sodium limits. This is not one of the sodium reduction strategy recommendations.

Our government will continue to take into account the full diet of Canadians in its approach to nutrition labelling and awareness and education initiatives, so that Canadians can make informed choices about the food they eat. My family and I read food labels all the time. I know it is simple to say and it may be tough to do, but if Canadians would simply take that one step before they put something in their shopping cart, we could avoid the necessity for bills such as the one proposed.

The bill would legislate the creation of an advisory committee that excludes the food industry. This is not in line with the sodium reduction strategy recommendation to take a multi-stakeholder approach. Our government will continue to seek the expertise of all stakeholders regarding sodium reduction initiatives.

If the bill is in fact to support the recommendations of the sodium working group, as the opposition claims, it has failed to meet that objective. It took a team of stakeholders nearly three years to develop the sodium reduction strategy for Canada. We are making progress, but time is needed to reach our sodium reduction goals. That is why provincial and territorial health ministers agreed to a 2016 deadline.

In closing, I cannot support this bill. It is not consistent with what the experts have recommended. It increases costs for Canadians and red tape for industry in its heavy-handed proposal for a wasteful and ineffective sodium registry, just like the other wasteful and ineffective registries we have finally taken off the backs of Canadians.

It is unnecessary because our approach is working. My hope would be that all members of the House will continue to work with our government on this important file. We will continue to work collaboratively with stakeholders to reduce the sodium intake of Canadians. By increasing education, awareness and guidance to the industry, we believe it is the balanced approach that will deliver results.

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we marked the second anniversary of the election of the NDP as the official opposition in the House of Commons. I would like to acknowledge the exemplary work of my four assistants, Olivier Thibault, Katia Isabelle, Isabelle Bourassa and Camille Bouillon Bégin.

Today, I am very pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-460, An Act respecting the implementation of the Sodium Reduction Strategy for Canada. This bill is very important to me.

First of all, I would like to say that foods high in sodium are the health scourge of the 21st century. Bill C-460 proposes a strategy to prevent thousands of needless deaths by reducing Canadians' sodium consumption. The government must address the issue of high sodium consumption, just as it tackled drunk driving and smoking a few years ago.

It is imperative that we lower sodium in foods to a safe level, improve food labelling, protect our children from misleading food advertising, ensure that public money is not used to pay for high-sodium foods and, above all, have Canada lead the way in food industry monitoring.

Our society is grappling with a deadly killer. Consuming too much sodium is the leading cause of cardiovascular disease in Canada. It also has devastating effects on the health of people suffering from serious illnesses such as stomach cancer, osteoporosis, asthma, obesity and kidney disease.

Sodium is a true blight on our health care system. We allocate time, money and human resources to the treatment of illnesses that are directly caused by the overconsumption of sodium, which is present in processed foods. Therefore, these resources are not available to fund research on and treatment for childhood diseases, congenital disorders and heart defects.

It is time to examine our conscience and make a choice. We can put in place a national sodium reduction strategy that will impose clear rules on the food industry, decrease Canadians' sodium consumption and help Canadians make healthier food choices. By reducing Canadians' sodium consumption to 1,800 mg a day, we could prevent almost 24,000 cardiovascular incidents a year. We could also prevent 10,000 to 16,000 deaths a year.

This government has proven to be particularly obsessed with the economy in recent years. Reducing sodium consumption would help save billions of dollars. For example, reducing our sodium consumption by 1,500 mg a day would generate direct savings of $1.38 billion in health care alone. Furthermore, if we include indirect costs, we could save $2.99 billion, which is almost $3 billion. That is a significant amount.

[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.