Bill Siksay

[Citizenship Act, November 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak in support of Bill S-2, an act to amend the Citizenship Act, which was passed in the other place, but which has been sponsored here by the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country. I thank the member for doing that and for his work on this issue in the past. I know it has been very important to him. I commend him for his work.

A little while ago we heard the parliamentary secretary suggest that those of us who support this legislation are acting out of a sense of emotionalism. I am emotional about this issue. This is an issue of fundamental justice. It is something that should have been corrected many years ago to extend justice to Canadians who have lost their citizenship through no fault of their own. I want to get upset about that. I think it is embarrassing, I think it is outrageous, I think it is utterly unacceptable that this has continued for so long. I am disappointed that the parliamentary secretary does not understand that. There is no excuse for not having addressed this issue by now.

The parliamentary secretary also talked about all of the ways that the lost Canadians had been accommodated in the meantime and the waivers that were available to them. The only waiver that is available to them is the waiver that denies them Canadian citizenship. That is not acceptable. We need to undo that as soon as possible. It is long overdue. If I am emotional about it, I am proud of that because it is something that needs to be done.

The bill deals with the situation of the so-called lost Canadians. These people lost their Canadian citizenship, not through any action of their own, but because their father or their responsible parent became a citizen of another country between 1947 and 1977. I want to stress it was through no action of their own. They did not do anything to change their citizenship status.

In that period if a person's father became a citizen of another country that person automatically lost his or her Canadian citizenship. What made this outrageous step possible was section 18(1) of the 1947 Citizenship Act which reads:

Where the responsible parent of a minor child ceases to be a Canadian citizen under section 15, 16 [which deals with acquisition of another nationality], or 17 [which deals with the renunciation where dual nationality], the child thereupon ceases to be a Canadian citizen if he is or thereupon becomes, under the law of any country other than Canada, a national or citizen of that country.

This situation meant that even if a child's mother retained her Canadian citizenship, the child would lose his or hers. This is an unacceptable situation.

Many people were not aware of this situation. They only discovered it, much to their surprise and shock, many years later, years that they had spent under the assumption that they were Canadians.

This situation was corrected by revisions to the Citizenship Act in 1977, but it was not made retroactive. What a terrible oversight that was. As a member of Parliament I hope I never participate in that kind of legislative oversight. We had the chance to fix it and we did not back in 1977.

This situation has been made even stranger by a court decision that said that children born to a Canadian mother outside of Canada in the period 1947 to 1977 are Canadian citizens, even if the father became a citizen of another country. That still leaves children born in Canada to Canadian parents out of Canadian citizenship if the father took out citizenship in another country in the period from 1947 to 1977.

We could have a situation where a family that had children in Canada, emigrated to another country, the father took out citizenship and then they subsequently had children in that other country. The children born in that other country are now eligible to be Canadian citizens, whereas the children actually born in Canada are not. That is an outrageous situation.

How can it be that children born in Canada to Canadian parents cannot be Canadian citizens? This is surely something that demands our attention and our emotional attention as well.

This issue has been before the House before. It has also been the subject of discussion at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration in previous Parliaments and in the current Parliament.

I want to acknowledge the hard work of Mr. Don Chapman and Mr. Charles Bosdet on this important issue. They have organized many lost Canadians and publicized their situation very effectively. They appeared before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration earlier this month and told their stories yet again. They also shared the stories of many others who faced similar circumstances.

A number of us were struck by the fact that the presentation they made to the committee just a few weeks ago was almost exactly the same as the presentation they made a number of years ago to the committee, almost word for word in some cases. Clearly, the situation has not changed. The issue was urgent then, and it remains urgent now.

The impatience of Mr. Chapman and Mr. Bosdet, their frustration with this situation and with the fact that they have had to appear so many times to ask for this basic justice was palpable in that meeting, as was their passion for Canada and Canadian citizenship.

The parliamentary secretary tried to ask broader questions. I do not think she did it effectively, but she tried to ask broader questions about Canadian citizenship. I think she would have done well to listen to both Mr. Chapman and Mr. Bosdet, who were very clear about what Canadian citizenship means to them. They were very clear about their connection and history as Canadians. They would do anything to have that restored immediately. To say that these people do not feel a connection to the country of their birth and their citizenship is completely unacceptable and outrageous.

They also presented many stories of the uneven application of the existing provisions. There are many stories about how some of the lost Canadians managed to reclaim their citizenship due to the easy intervention of a citizenship official, probably in contravention of the existing law, but certainly in appreciation of the ridiculousness of the situation. There has been a very uneven application of the existing legislation with its flaws.

This matter has come up at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. Earlier today the member for Kitchener—Waterloo, the chair of the standing committee, tabled a report in the House about a number of issues that the committee has looked at regarding citizenship. I commend it to the attention of all members.

In it there is a section on the lost Canadians since this is an issue that has been before the committee in the past and has certainly been before us in our work in this Parliament as well. The committee made a very clear recommendation in the report regarding the lost Canadians.

I want to quote the recommendation the committee made: “The committee recommends that any person born in Canada who lost their Canadian citizenship as a child because their parent acquired the nationality of another country should be eligible to resume their citizenship without first becoming a permanent resident and without having to meet a residency requirement”.

The committee was very clear that this needs to go ahead directly without any special requirements because we believe that they are indeed Canadian citizens.

The remedies offered by the government just do not satisfy. Currently people who lost their citizenship in this way are automatically eligible for permanent resident status, but they must meet health, criminality, security and financial requirements and they must pay processing and landing fees. Those requirements, given the circumstances, are not acceptable.

There is no way people should have to wait the period. There is no way they should have to become permanent residents again. There is certainly no way that they should be required to pay landing and processing fees for resuming their citizenship in an appropriate way. The question of security has come up and that is dealt with in this legislation. Where there are major security issues, the cabinet still has the ability to deal with this matter.

I believe that citizenship must be restored to anyone who lost it under those circumstances. I believe they must be seen as people who have never lost their citizenship. It would be unfair and unjust to require them to engage in the permanent resident process or to have to live in Canada for a year prior to having their citizenship restored. These folks are Canadians and there should be no question about their status. The circumstances under which they were stripped of their Canadian citizenship were unjust and unfair. We must right this wrong without further delay. I agree with the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country when he said that the lost Canadians must be welcomed home.

[Foreign Affairs, November 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, today is the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian people, but today stateless Palestinian refugee claimants are facing deportation from Canada. Their deportations will ultimately lead to their return to poverty, violence and severely limited human rights in refugee camps where many have lived their entire lives before escaping to Canada.

Could the Prime Minister assure us that Canada will live up to its obligations under the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness and, given his personal commitment to the protection of Palestinians, will he ensure that stateless Palestinian refugees are not deported from Canada?

[Food and Drugs Act, November 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to participate in the debate on the private member's bill introduced by the member for Oshawa. I want to congratulate him on bringing it forward, following up on the work for the member for Nanaimo—Alberni.

The member for Oshawa and I graduated from the same high school. That is a matter of some pride for the former principal of that school who spoke with my parents not so long ago. It is something we have in common.

We also have in common a background in association with chiropractic. My father was a chiropractor who practised for many years in Ajax and Whitby. I know he would be pleased that I am speaking in the debate today.

I also have mentioned to both the members for Nanaimo—Alberni and Oshawa that if there are not three or four New Democrats on the health committee, I am happy there are three or four chiropractors on the committee. That brings a really important perspective to the work of the health committee and to the work of Parliament. I see that as a very positive development.

As I said, I grew up in a household where there was great respect for natural health products and alternative medicine. I bring that healthy respect to the debate today. In fact, this morning I am suffering from the effects of a cold. I think it is the effect of sharing lots of recycled air on airplanes back and forth across the country. It is ironic that the echinacea and vitamin C which I prefer to take are not as well known or as readily available as many of the over-the-counter medications in many pharmacies. There is an unfairness and a risk associated with that. I think that a lot of the over the counter medications, indeed, a lot of drugs, have more risks and a larger history of concern then many of the natural health products, which we are discussing today. I would welcome greater knowledge, availability and appreciation for natural health products.

Back in the 1997 election campaign, when I ran in the riding of Vancouver Centre as the NDP candidate, this was a major issue. I remember at many all candidates meetings the issue came up, and there was a lot of activity. I remember visiting many natural health food stores and meeting with practitioners of Chinese medicine. It was a huge issue for Canadians who knew the benefits of natural health products and wanted access to them. They wanted to ensure that the government recognized that need.

People appreciate the importance of alternative medicine and preventive medicine. I see natural health products as fitting very well into understandings of both of those categories of health care.

We have seen over the years many of the difficult and problematic effects of drugs on people, such as death, allergic reactions and side-effects. Yet we continue to use them and prescribe them in large numbers. We need to examine our reliance on those. They are very important in the treatment of many diseases, but there are other alternatives. I do not know if we as a society and as parliamentarians give appropriate attention to those.

The NDP welcomes this legislation. We want to see it get to the committee where we can have a very thorough discussion. We realize that has happened before, but clearly it needs to happen again because of the concerns which have been raised by the member for Oshawa and others. We want to see that it gets that full discussion at committee, and we will certainly support getting it there.

We want to ensure that there is access to natural health products, that they are safe and that appropriate product information is available for people who choose to use those. I know that the NDP health critic, the member for Elmwood—Transcona, will be anxious to follow up on all of those issues in committee.

Back in 1998, when this issue made it on to the parliamentary agenda, the then health critic for our party was the current member for Winnipeg North. She did a report at the time which was very supportive of the availability of natural health products. I want to quote from her report. One of her central statements was:

Canadians want access to natural health products at affordable prices. They want their government to play a pro-active role to ensure safety and quality and in advancing research and knowledge about natural health alternatives.

That was made very clear at the time, and it is being made clear again today. Canadians want that kind of access. They want safe access and they want to know about these products. Back in 1998, literally thousands of Canadians contacted members of Parliament saying that they wanted to ensure that this important route for pursuing wellness, disease prevention and a holistic approach to health care was available to them. I know it is as true today as it was back in 1998.

That is why members of the NDP are committed to reasonable access to herbal products and natural health care alternatives. That is why we will continue to work to ensure that happens in Canada.

Back in 1998, our health critic raised a number of issues which were crucial in this discussion. She raised concerns about the Health Protection Branch and the amount of legislation which related to this area. She indicated that we needed to have confidence in the work of the Health Protection Branch. She was not convinced that Canadians had that confidence. She wanted to ensure it was there.

She was also concerned about a number of other things, including the loss of the national health products research laboratory, the elimination of the drug research bureau, attempts to gut the food research lab, threats and intimidation of scientists, cost recovery policies, the influence of the pharmaceutical industry, the double standard for drugs and natural health products and the general lack of openness, consistency and accountability. Those were all very serious concerns. Some might have been addressed in the meantime, but some continue.

We need to talk about the kind of framework that Canadians want when it comes to health products and herbal remedies. We want to ensure that the appropriate research and information is made available, and that safety standards are significant. We also want to ensure that Canadians have trust in the branch of government responsible for ensuring those things. That is a concern of ours, as we discuss the current bill. We want to ensure that a system is in place which will ensure confidence in the system so Canadians will know that the products they choose are helpful to their health.

The NDP also wants to ensure that what is on the label is actually what is in the bottle. Labelling is a crucial issue in this whole debate.

The health critic made some general suggestions in 1998 that were important to all of this. She suggested a national institute on alternative health care that would conduct in-depth research into the benefits of alternative health care and the integration of traditional and non-traditional approaches to wellness and disease prevention. We see this discussion in that context.

She also wanted to acknowledge the contribution and expertise of health care professionals, including homeopaths, naturopaths, herbalists, traditional Chinese and ayurvedic practitioners and aboriginal healers. She urged initiating discussions with the provinces and territories about professional recognition and educational possibilities. That is increasingly important in Canada, as more and more Canadians look to those professionals for care and for information about their ongoing health and well-being.

Our critic also asked that Canada show leadership internationally to ensure that the development and marketing of national health products was based on the rights of indigenous people and environmental standards. That came out of concerns about how some of the natural health products were harvested and how they came to market. She wanted to ensure that was done in the context of respect for both the environment and for aboriginal peoples around the world.

The NDP is very supportive of getting the bill to committee where it can be discussed fully. As a consumer of natural health products and someone who was raised in a context of appreciation for alternative medicine and natural health products, I strongly support having that further and thorough discussion. I am pleased to have participated in the debate this morning.

[Supply, November 25th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster today and his reminder about the financial mismanagement and the bad project management record of the Liberal government when it comes to Mirabel. It is surely one of the saddest examples of that sorry history.

This afternoon I listened to a Liberal member try to convince me that 6,000 acres was not enough to run a major airport in North America or anywhere in the world. In fact, he ignored the record that Pearson operates with 4,200 acres; Ottawa with 4,500; Los Angeles has 3,500 acres; Heathrow Airport, a major airport in the world, has only 2,700 acres. They do not seem to suffer from the impossibility of running an excellent operation.

However, I thought about this member's speech and the fact that here was a government that planned an airport that needed 100,000 acres originally. It expropriated that much land and caused that much disruption in the community. It just highlighted for me how little faith I have in the ability of a Liberal member to explain to me what was really needed to run an appropriate airport in this day and age.

I wonder if the member for Burnaby—New Westminster might comment on how the parties compare when it comes to financial management of important projects and other government programs.

[Marriage Capacity Act, November 24th, 2004]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-300, an act to amend the Divorce Act, the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act and the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce my private member's bill, an act to amend the Divorce Act, the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act and the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act, which would establish equal access to civil marriage and divorce for gay and lesbian couples in Canada.

The bill seeks to recognize the loving relationships, responsible commitments and full equality of gay and lesbian couples. It also recognizes the decisions of 19 judges in 7 provincial and territorial jurisdictions that the current laws do not conform with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I would urge the government to make this bill unnecessary by having the courage of its new found convictions and introducing its own amendments without delay.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Citizenship and Immigration, November 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, media reports note that Citizenship and Immigration Canada's exotic dancer program has seen a dramatic increase in the number of Romanian women who apply to work temporarily in this field in Canada.

In the past, the department has stepped up enforcement measures with regard to this particular program due to the concerns about the exploitation of the workers involved.

Could the minister outline what measures are being taken to ensure that workers admitted under this program are not part of the global trafficking of women, that their rights as workers are being respected and that they are not subject to exploitation while in Canada?

[Transgender and Transsexual Day of Remembrance, November 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, November 20 is Transgender and Transsexual Day of Remembrance. This day will be marked in communities around the world to memorialize members of the trans community who have been killed due to anti-transgender hatred and prejudice. We must honour the lives of people who have been so brutally targeted, and those who face indifference and intolerance.

The Transgender and Transsexual Day of Remembrance should remind us all that trans people are members of our families, our friends, colleagues and neighbours. We must seek an end to the violence they face through understanding and human rights protections based on gender identity and expression.

[Department of Canadian Heritage Act, November 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in this debate this morning on the motions to amend Bill C-7, which is the act to amend the Department of Canadian Heritage Act and the Parks Canada Agency Act and to make related amendments to other acts.

As a member of the New Democratic Party, I strongly support Bill C-7, because I think this is a long overdue change to put Parks Canada back with the Minister of the Environment. However, I have some concerns about making that a permanent decision and ensuring that responsibility stays with the Minister of the Environment. The motions now before us now address that. We want to ensure that the Minister of the Environment continues to have the responsibility for Parks Canada.

We want to ensure that person who has the expertise and who has concern for the biodiversity of Canada and for the ecological concerns in Canada maintains the responsibility for our parks, as they are a key aspect of the policies around the environment.

We are also concerned about the constant shifting of the responsibility for Parks Canada. Some years ago it was with Environment Canada. It shifted to Canadian Heritage. Now it is shifting back to the Minister of the Environment. Each time we do that, we spend valuable dollars that could be spent on building and maintaining our parks and infrastructure in our parks, which is always in jeopardy and has always been underfunded. We want to avoid those changes which constantly add to the problems of our park system. We think the Minister of the Environment is the key person to look after parks and that is where responsibility for that should lie.

We want to avoid those changes which constantly add to the problems of our park system. We think the Minister of the Environment is the key person to look after parks and that is where responsibility for that should lie.

Earlier it was suggested that this might be some attempt to limit the power of the Prime Minister to appoint the minister. We are saying nothing about the Prime Minister's ability to appoint the Minister of the Environment. All we are saying is that the Minister of the Environment should be the cabinet minister who has responsibility for parks. We want to ensure that responsibility remains with that minister.

Furthermore, we think that if there is to be some change in this, given the importance of it, the House should have some say in that decision. That is why we suggest that the ability of the cabinet, the governor in council, to shift the parks mandate from one ministry to another without seeking the consent of the House should be removed from the bill, and one of the motions addresses that issue.

Parks are a key issue for Canadians and a key part of our Canadian heritage and our sensibilities as Canadians. Our natural areas are important to us. They are a spiritual place for Canadians. They are a place where we go for recreation and where we celebrate the natural beauty of the country. We want to ensure that central place in the psyche of Canadians is recognized by the legislation before us. We think that ensuring the House has a say in where that responsibility lies and a continuing say in where it lies will address that.

We also want to ensure that people with expertise in ecological integrity and other ecological issues can have the responsibility for parks. That is why we think it is important that this function remain with the Minister of the Environment.

It is part of an overall strategy. Parks are not something that is isolated that can be shifted around willy-nilly from ministry to ministry. We have fought long and hard to ensure that the responsibility for our parks is seen as part of a broad environmental strategy for Canada, a broad strategy of biodiversity in Canada. We want to ensure that the parks remain with the appropriate minister for that. Clearly for us, that is the Minister of the Environment.

Bill C-7 addresses some important issues, important issues that the NDP has always supported. We have always believed that the environment department should have responsibility for national parks. Our critic, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, has spoken very strongly in the House and in committee on that issue.

We think this shift supports the biodiversity goals that we have. Centralizing responsibility for agencies concerned with biodiversity ensures for a more coherent strategy and communication. Park Canada Agency will join the Canadian Wildlife Service, the biodiversity convention office, in the environmental umbrella. We think that is a very appropriate place for it to be because it is linked intimately with those other agencies and offices.

In contrast, the Ministry of Canadian Heritage has no other responsibilities for biodiversity. We think this is a really crucial move, a key one which makes logical sense and gives the biodiversity issues their appropriate place.

This shift also resonates with our philosophy of national parks as wilderness areas. Parks Canada Agency's most sacred charge is to protect our national parks. We view many of these as wilderness areas, biologically diverse places where Canadians can connect and identify with nature.

Our parks are places where Canadians go for recreation. It is a spiritual trek for many Canadians. It is not just recreation in the sense of diversion, sports playing, hiking, or time away; it is recreation in that we get to recreate our sense of self and our sense of the world. Our parks have a particular place in that , a very central place in the spirituality of many Canadians.

Moving responsibility for Parks Canada to Canadian Heritage was widely seen to reflect a more mundane philosophy of national parks. It conflated them in with our built heritage, our human constructed heritage. Moving Parks Canada back to Environment Canada makes a positive statement about the value of our wilderness areas.

We have noted that organizations such as the Sierra Club of Canada in one of its report cards acknowledged that there was some progress on a green agenda in Canada, but concluded that the federal government's marks have been sliding in relation to protecting nature, parks, endangered species and the life of our oceans. We want to make sure that that trend is reversed. Putting the parks in with Environment Canada is a significant way of ensuring that we do better in the area of protecting our wilderness spaces and ensuring that the appropriate attention is paid to our national parks system.

Canadians do not want to see any slippage in our parks system. They do not want to see any further loss of our wilderness areas, any further decrease in the biodiversity of this country. We want to make sure that our parks, as a primary agent of ensuring those things, are resting with the appropriate people. We want to make sure that the appropriate people are doing that work and that the appropriate minister is overseeing that work.

That is why with the amendments we are proposing today we want to ensure that the Minister of the Environment is the key minister involved in overseeing and ensuring the health, well-being and the development of our parks. We want to ensure that they are protected wilderness areas, that they are places of retreat and recreation for Canadians, that they have the appropriate habitat for wildlife and flora and fauna.

We want to make sure that continues and cannot be changed willy-nilly and cavalierly. We want to make sure that the House has a say in any further changes or any further attempt to move that around. We want to make sure the House has a chance to examine exactly what the reasons for any proposed change in the future would be. We want to ensure that the ideals of Canadians are maintained with regard to the importance of parks within our country.

[Supply, November 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, when I was in Rossland, B.C. last week it really showed me how the trickle down effect of government policy affects people right at the cafeteria lunchroom table. We could not get any closer to a basic need or a basic activity in our society than having lunch at school with one's classmates and teachers. As a result of policy decisions, government cutbacks and funding cutbacks, which I would have to say started here in the House and worked their way across the country, the provincial governments did not have the money needed for education funding in the province of British Columbia, which had an effect on the amount of money the school boards could provide which led to the school board having to make the decision to cut the cafeteria program at a local high school.

The perfect opportunity to ensure the health of those students was lost in that school because the opportunity to provide that service was gone. Instead, volunteers and students are picking up on that urgent need because they know how important it is. They do not want to see that opportunity slide and their health deteriorate because of those kinds of decisions.

Our health should not be a volunteer activity. I am glad volunteers are there to step into the fray when they are called upon and to do the job, but we need to make sure that our governments, which are here to organize society in a way that supports all of our citizens, do their jobs. They should not be leaving it up to the vagaries of a volunteer activity and the availability of people to take on extra responsibilities in their lives.

I salute those volunteers but at the same time I would rather put that project out of business by restoring the cafeteria in that school. Schools should have cafeterias because there are dieticians who help build the menus for the students so they get the healthy kinds of food that they will need to lead productive lives for many years into the future.

[Supply, November 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Burnaby--New Westminster.

I am pleased to participate in the debate this afternoon on trans fatty acids on behalf of my constituents of Burnaby--Douglas.

I also want to pay tribute to the work of my colleague from Winnipeg Centre on this important issue. The member for Winnipeg Centre has led the charge on issues of trans fats in this Parliament and in the last Parliament. His work has raised the awareness of Canadians and members of the House to the dangers of these substances and has contributed significantly to our understanding of healthy eating, a healthy lifestyle and preventive health care.

Families in my riding and across the country are concerned about trans fats. This was clearly demonstrated to me in the last Parliament when, in light of the work done by the member for Winnipeg Centre, my predecessor sought the feedback of local residents on trans fats. Literally hundreds of folks from Burnaby--Douglas responded, supporting our efforts to see trans fats banned. I know this is an important issue in my riding and today I want to speak for those people.

I believe the House can work together to respond to the concerns of people in my riding and across the country by committing to ban and eliminate trans fats by November 2005, as the motion before us states.

Trans fat is made when manufacturers add hydrogen to vegetable oil, a process called hydrogenation. This is done to increase the shelf life and maintain the flavour of the foods to which they are added. Trans fats can be found in a wide variety of foods Canadians consume every day, such as vegetable shortenings, crackers, cookies, snack foods and many more can be made with or fried in partially hydrogenated oils.

We know that trans fats are harmful to people and yet these hydrogenated oils are present in many of the processed foods that we eat. Trans fats cause significant and serious lowering of good cholesterol and a serious increase in bad cholesterol. They are added to food to increase the food's shelf life but consumption of them directly affects our lives and the lives of our children. The decrease in good cholesterol and the increase in bad cholesterol is often the double whammy effect.

I am concerned about the impact this unhealthy standard has on our children. Those children who start eating a steady diet of fast foods are at a higher risk for heart disease. It is even an issue in utero. Children as young as 8, 9 and 10 years of age are now having to be tested for their cholesterol levels.

How can we justify that? How can we justify having children as young as 8, 9 or 10 years old with high cholesterol? Are we putting children at risk of heart disease for the sake of convenience and for the corporate bottom line?

Lots of young people in Canada are showing real leadership on the issue of healthy eating. Last weekend, I and my other NDP colleagues from British Columbia, including the member for Burnaby--New Westminster, made a tour of the West Kootenay area of British Columbia where we met with many people in the communities of Castlegar, Rossland, Trail and Nelson.

One of the issues that I discussed with some activists from the community of Rossland was the whole issue of healthy eating. I met with some folks who were working on what is called the Waddell project, which is a preventive health project that has an anti-cancer and a very community-based focus. The specific project that they came to discuss with me was the healthy eating project in the local high school.

The high school in Rossland recently lost its cafeteria service due to budget cutbacks. The cafeteria was replaced with vending machines. Unfortunately, the kinds of foods that we normally get from vending machines are the ones that are most often associated with trans fats and with an unhealthy lifestyle.

In order to address that problem, the community, along with the teachers, the students, the parents and the people involved with the Waddell project, organized a food store where healthy food was sold during lunch hours as an alternative to what was available in the vending machine. It showed a real awareness of the issues of healthy eating and healthy food. It also showed the importance of those issues to the community in that they were willing to volunteer and put the hours in to organize something like that. We did not discuss specifically the issue of trans fats but the whole idea of the project was to make sure that students at the high school had access to healthy food. I want to pay tribute to some of the people I met with that afternoon last weekend.

The corporate bottom line should not be determining the health of our nation. Consumers must be able to have confidence in the food they have purchased and must be able to easily make good choices in that regard.

I do think the issue has a relationship to the overall well-being of our health care system. If our government thought ahead, planned and responded to emerging issues and adequately funded our health care institutions and professionals, we would not be battling the current health care crisis and the rapid increase in many acute care health issues and diseases.

A preventive health care approach is vital to the health of Canadians and to the ongoing viability of our health care system. I believe our government must do what it can to prevent disease before we treat it. Let us keep our people healthy by changing unhealthy lifestyles and ensuring healthy choices can be made.

The potential to produce better health by banning trans fats could offer a tremendous health care saving. It is a key part of a preventive health care strategy. This significant shift in focus requires strong leadership and the NDP is prepared to continue to show the way on this issue. We are responding to the needs of Canadian families.

As we are increasingly aware of the effects of the foods that we consume on our health, we must eliminate trans fats from our diets. There is no recommended daily intake of trans fatty acids. In fact, the daily recommended intake is zero. Just one gram a day increases the risk of heart disease by 20%. The Canadian average is 10 grams a day. Ten grams is the highest rate of intake in the world.

That is why we are calling for an outright ban on trans fats. Canadians deserve a chance at a healthy life.

We are on the verge of an epidemic in our country. In fact, in some ways we already are in the middle of a cancer epidemic. We have astounding levels of obesity and diabetes and these diseases can be directly related to trans fats.

Our government has an obligation to the people of Canada to ensure that the foods available to them are safe. Trans fatty acids are not safe.

Dr. Walter Willett of the Harvard School of Public Health says that the amount of trans fats we are consuming is “a recipe for a health disaster”. Eliminating trans fats could prevent 2,000 heart attacks a year and save 1,000 lives per year in Canada.

Studies have shown too that people with lower incomes tend to eat more processed foods, as these foods are often cheap and easily accessible. The ability to prepare fresh foods is often more limited for low income folks. When income is an issue, people often eat more fast food as well. Making healthy choices should not be something limited to people who have higher incomes. We must do all we can to ensure that healthy food does not continue to be a class issue in Canada.

Healthy eating prevents health problems, such as obesity, heart disease, cancer, diabetes, high blood pressure and stroke. We should be doing whatever we can to deal with these silent killers.

The Heart and Stroke Foundation and the World Health Organization support a ban on trans fats and so does the NDP. The Heart and Stroke Foundation is working hard and doing excellent work on this issue because of the great danger these fats pose to the health of our hearts.

We must make every effort to prevent heart attacks and to save lives. This effort would take some pressure off our already overburdened health care system. We must do whatever possible to ensure that trans fat free becomes the standard. We simply cannot afford to put the lives of our families in jeopardy. We should not just label the toxins in our food. We should get rid of the toxins altogether.

I also have heard discussion this afternoon about requiring a labelling standard. That does not make much sense to me. Why label something when we know it should not be there in the first place? It makes sense just to get rid of it so that we know all the food that we consume is free of this terrible material.

I believe we are called in that regard to a higher standard. We need to make sure that when it comes to our food the bottom line is public health and public safety.

We have seen the horrible results of sacrificing standards when it comes to our drinking water in Canada. Few Canadians find it acceptable to put off any action that would ensure safe drinking water. Surely the situation is the same when it comes to our food supply.

The people of Burnaby—Douglas sent me here because they want government to work for them. They want government to look out for their best interests and to act when their interests are proven to be compromised. I and many of my constituents believe this is exactly one of those situations.

Trans fats clearly pose a danger to the health of Canadians. In that light, the responsible course is for us as parliamentarians to take action to ensure that trans fat is not consumed. That is why I am supporting a ban on trans fat in our food and that is why I will be voting in favour of the motion.