Djaouida Sellah

[Business of Supply, February 14th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the Liberal member's speech. I would like to ask her the following question.

The critical issue of missing and murdered aboriginal women and girls in Canada has been an ongoing problem, just as it was when the Liberals were in power. In 1996, official statistics showed that aboriginal women were five times more likely to die from violence than other Canadian women.

What does the member have to say about the federal government's inaction?

[Aerospace Industry, February 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, while the Jenkins report talks about the importance of innovation to economic prosperity, the Canadian Space Agency is dealing with the impact of the Conservatives' cuts.

In fact, 700 jobs and internationally recognized expertise are in jeopardy in Saint-Hubert, which is in my riding.

The uncertainty surrounding the agency has consequences for the entire aerospace sector. The agency is synonymous with the Canadarm, Julie Payette and Chris Hadfield.

Will the Minister of Industry guarantee that these jobs will be protected?

[Health, February 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the minister seems to be taking the matter of energy drinks lightly. But the dangers are very real.

Investigations are currently taking place in the United States following deaths that are possibly linked to these concentrates. Rather than granting temporary approval to such products while awaiting the results of the tests, Health Canada should make sure that the drinks meet public health criteria before allowing them onto the market.

Will the minister commit to providing Canadians with correct information about the dangers associated with consuming energy drinks?

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, February 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, once again I thank my hon. colleague for the question. Indeed, what I criticized in my speech was the monopoly held by the two large companies.

I said that the Conservatives are unfortunately not encouraging small and medium-sized businesses. As my colleague pointed out, the losses will be huge. That is why we also want to talk about prices. When people have no choice, or when they have to choose between only two companies, what will they do with their merchandise? They are between a rock and a hard place: either they ship their merchandise with one of those two companies or they let their product rot, if it is an agricultural product.

It seems that all the other companies have no choice. There is no competition. There are no jobs when a monopoly is held by just two companies. Unfortunately, shippers really have no choice.

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, February 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to again thank my colleague for his question.

As I mentioned in my speech, 80% of shippers are dissatisfied with the services provided by the two companies that have a monopoly on this means of transportation.

Instead of supporting the monopoly model, the Conservatives should instead look after small and medium-sized businesses. The government should pass legislation that has teeth in order to improve the level of service and try to compensate shippers, particularly in agriculture, who are incurring millions of dollars in losses, as I said.

Unfortunately, these shippers have to check for themselves if their goods arrived at the right place and in what condition they got there. At times, perishable goods have rotted by the time they reach their destination. We can imagine the kinds of losses these people incur.

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, February 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question.

We are discussing Bill C-52 today because nothing has been done up to this point, obviously. Unfortunately, the government waited until there was a crisis and the shippers and the NDP put pressure on it to introduce this bill.

This is not ideal, but it is better than nothing. That is what the shippers are telling us. They are not really satisfied with the bill, but they hope it will be improved upon in committee.

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, February 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

We are well aware that the Conservatives are protecting their friends in the big railway companies. By giving the railway companies what is essentially a monopoly, the Conservatives are treating Canadian shippers as if they do not matter. Unfortunately, that is the answer to the hon. member's question.

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, February 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North. I listened closely to his question.

We believe this is a first step in a crisis situation. The Liberals had until 2006 to introduce a bill, but unfortunately they did not do so. This is what we are suggesting. We are in favour of Bill C-52 going to committee, so witnesses can be heard and amendments will probably be made.

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, February 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-52 amends the Canada Transportation Act to require a railway company, on a shipper’s request, to make the shipper an offer to enter into a contract respecting the manner in which the railway company must fulfill its service obligations to the shipper.

In point of fact, clients of the rail transportation system, like farmers and mining companies, are victims of the near-monopoly held by railway companies: service interruptions, delays and other disruptive situations at Canadian National and Canadian Pacific are harmful to industries such as agriculture, forestry, mining and manufacturing, which do not receive compensation. A large proportion of the goods are intended for export. Poor rail transportation services damage the ability of Canadian exporters to compete on the international marketplace, particularly in terms of agricultural products.

Moreover, a number of shippers have difficulty, not just in getting good service, but in getting any service at all. Shippers complain that they are not able to sign freight contracts with the big railway companies. This situation is detrimental to Canadian exporters. Steps must be taken, especially because right now the trade deficit is very high. I would like to point out that the trade deficit reached $2 billion last November.

Statistics show that 80% of railway clients are dissatisfied with the service they receive. As the situation is one of a quasi-monopoly, it is important that the government take action to ensure that clients are better protected. It is the shippers who have to pick up the pieces if their goods do not arrive on time. This causes huge inconveniences.

When perishables are being shipped, the situation is disastrous, because by the time the goods arrive at their destination, they may be rotten or just not usable. This hinders Canada’s competitive position. For example, Canadian soybean growers are placed at a competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis their Argentinian competitors, not because of the quality of their product, but because of unreliable shipments. The growers should not have to bear the cost of this situation.

Rail transportation of goods is vital in many respects. First of all, since 70% of goods are transported by rail at some point, we need to have an efficient system. Secondly, rail transportation makes it possible to keep trucks off the roads, thereby limiting greenhouse gas emissions that result from the transportation of our goods. By ensuring that a certain number of trucks are not on the roads, we avoid putting additional pressure on our road infrastructures, that do not really need it.

I come from the Montreal area. Like my constituents in my riding of Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, when I use the highways, I can see many trucks, and I can also see the state of the infrastructure, which is underfunded. Therefore, we need a rail transportation system that is efficient and accessible, so that we do not make the situation worse. Moreover, we need investments to restore our existing infrastructure.

Inaction on this issue will be costly for the Canadian economy. The situation cannot continue. Inadequate rail service is costly for Canadian businesses, and it is detrimental to the economy and to the labour market. In 2008, the government set up a panel of experts that studied the issue for three years. Their report was submitted in early 2011.

The government also initiated a mediation process that served only to show that Canadian National and Canadian Pacific lack the will to solve the problem and to provide adequate service to shippers. Although this bill could be improved, it is part of the solution.

Bill C-52 will cover only new service level agreements, not those that already exist. Many shippers will therefore continue to live with unreliable and unfair service, without having any recourse to dispute resolution if violations of existing service agreements occur.

Furthermore, arbitration is only available for shippers who are negotiating new contracts. Instead of providing fast, reliable dispute resolution for all shippers, Bill C-52 is offering a limited arbitration process for a small group of shippers. The proposed arbitration process may be too costly for shippers and require an unfair burden of proof by asking shippers to prove that they need the services of the rail company.

To find a comprehensive solution, we also have to consider the question of rates. While some members of the shipping community wanted to address problems with rates in this legislative process as well, the Conservatives made it clearly known that they will not be examining that aspect before the next legislative review of the Canada Transportation Act, in 2014 and 2015.

Of course we have to tackle the problems associated with service level agreements, but we also have to consider how we can make rail transportation more affordable. We have to tackle the problem in its entirety to ensure that our businesses, some of which are in rural communities, are an important element of the local economy.

The situation affects numerous sectors, such as natural resources, manufacturing, agriculture, forestry products, mining, chemicals and the auto industry. No one is really spared.

It is also important to note that the mining sector is the second largest employer in first nations communities, after the public sector, of course.

Improving rail services for shipping goods from mining companies could have a positive impact on the economic situation of the aboriginal peoples in some regions of the country. The government should be working with first nations leaders to improve their living conditions and the economic circumstances of the aboriginal people. There needs to be a sense of urgency to move quickly on this issue.

I will conclude by saying that it is most important that we not solve problems by halves. We have to tackle the problem in its entirety. I know that Bill C-52 is a small step forward, because this is a crisis.

[Sodium Reduction Strategy for Canada Act, February 1st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to add to the discussion about Bill C-460, which was introduced by my colleague from Vancouver East. She is the opposition health critic. I wholeheartedly support this bill, which aims to implement the sodium reduction strategy for Canada.

Sodium intake is a serious public health issue in Canada. Health Canada has made recommendations for sodium intake. The recommended daily intake is 1,500 milligrams for an adult under the age of 50. The average Canadian has a sodium intake of about 3,400 milligrams, or more than double the daily recommendation. The department goes so far as to set a tolerable upper intake level of 2,300 milligrams. Without question, Canadians are consuming too much sodium, and we are far exceeding the target amounts.

The government has a role to play, but it also has everything to gain. Excess sodium is eating away at the health of Canadians. Reducing sodium intake to 1,800 milligrams a day would reduce the number of cardiovascular events, such as heart attacks and strokes, by 23,500. High sodium intake is also a significant factor in hypertension, as we all know.

Hypertension in Canada has reached a worrisome level. Forty percent of Canadians have hypertension or prehypertension. A decrease in sodium intake would reduce the number of cases by 30% and could prevent between 10,000 and 16,000 deaths a year. These are alarming figures that require immediate action.

Clearly, these preventable deaths, these cardiovascular diseases and this hypertension epidemic have a significant human cost. The main reason I support this bill is to prevent these human tragedies.

There is also an economic cost. A study found that, if Canadians reduced their personal sodium intake level to 1,500 mg per day, it would save our health care system an estimated $1.38 billion. Including indirect costs, these savings could reach $3 billion. By reducing our sodium intake, we could improve our health and save a significant amount of money. How can one oppose virtue?

Many people are wondering about this topic and why we should have this strategy. Why not launch an awareness campaign so that Canadians stop adding salt to their food? The reason is simple: reducing salt added at the table will not solve the problem since 77% of the salt Canadians consume is from processed and prepackaged food. Salt from food in its original and natural form and salt added at the table represent only 23% of Canadians' daily sodium intake. We therefore have to make improvements in areas where it will have an impact.

The bill's strategy is nothing new. The same strategy was proposed in 2010 by the sodium working group, which was put in place by this government in 2007. This working group was—it has since been dismantled by the minister—made up of representatives of the food processing and food service sectors, non-governmental organizations focused on health, scientific and consumer groups, health professional organizations and various government departments and agencies. It was a very inclusive group made up of all the key stakeholders in the field. This group came up with and recommended the strategy that was presented in 2010 and that is found in my colleague's bill.

What measures will be taken as a result of this bill?

First of all, let us be clear. This bill will not take any products off the shelves. Products containing more sodium than the amount recommended by Health Canada will have to be clearly labelled. This will help consumers make healthier choices. No one will stop individuals from buying an item containing too much sodium. With this bill, consumers will simply be better informed.

I recently came across an issue of the publication put out by the Association francophone des parents du Nouveau-Brunswick. It had a two-page article on the problem of sodium in our food. The point I want to make here is that the article had a four-point sidebar on how to read labels to better understand them, particularly when it comes to sodium content. This example alone illustrates just how much we need a better, simpler labelling system that consumers can rely on in order to make informed choices.

Obviously, the voluntary approach that the government has espoused for the past 20 years is not working. Very few food companies have reduced the amount of salt in their foods, and Canadians' salt intake has not gone down. In Australia, a similar approach has actually resulted in a 9% increase in sodium intake rather than a decrease. A recently published American report found that, used alone, a voluntary approach was ineffective over a period of 40 years.

I am sure that that is one of the reasons why many groups of health professionals and health experts support this bill and the need for a national sodium reduction strategy. Three of them are based in Quebec: the Quebec Coalition on Weight-Related Problems, the Council for Food Progress Initiatives, and Louise Vandelac, director of the UQAM's Institute of Environmental Sciences.

Also supporting this initiative are the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Nurses Association, the Canadian Pharmacists Association and Public Health Physicians of Canada. These groups and associations are on the front lines. They see the devastating effects of high sodium intake, and they want to make sure that consumers have access to healthy food and information to help them make good choices.

The World Health Organization has published several reports on the importance of reducing sodium intake. The 2012 United Nations report on food revealed that Canada was not doing enough to discourage the consumption of foods high in sodium.

We have to do better for Canadians. These are simple measures recommended by the government's sodium working group, a group made up of representatives from many walks of life. There is no reason for the government not to take these simple and important measures to improve the health of Canadians.