Debates of Nov. 18th, 2004

Supply

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Vancouver East. I am pleased to do so and pleased to rise in the chamber to talk about the motion relating to the banning of trans fats.

It is important to identify a couple of things at the forefront. The first is that when we learn as legislators about a public policy issue related to our health and we know about the harm it is causing our citizens, there is a duty and an obligation for us to act. It is simply not enough to expect other forces out there to do the job that parliamentarians should be doing. That is why today we are discussing this issue. That is why I believe it is very important that we participate right now in the changing of a food additive that harms Canadians' lives and that we also provide the solutions necessary for our dietary health. That is what this motion does.

There has been some discussion about the issue not really being in the forefront of the radar screen of Canadians right now. They have heard some information about it on a regular basis or piecemeal through the media, but it is an issue that has been breaking ground in the health field for many years.

It is interesting that the member for Winnipeg Centre raised this in caucus over a year ago. I want to pay tribute to his hard work. It is his due diligence in the past year that has led to today's motion. I hope it will be supported by all parties. I hope we will actually see action on this to protect Canadians' health. I hope we will be at the forefront in the world in making sure that our producers comply to better standards for trans fats, that our consumption as Canadians and our health are improved, and that we become world leaders like we can be and should be in many other fields.

The member for Winnipeg Centre did that by doing due diligence. He did a lot of research at the forefront. I will touch on the people he spoke to and the organizations he consulted, both for and against the concerns he was raising. He actually followed a process that is very complementary to the parliamentary process. It goes back to previous parliaments. On February 6, 2004, he introduced a private member's bill to look at banning trans fats. That was the point of pressure. It is very important to recognize that.

One of the reasons I am proud to be a New Democrat is that we have members who are not afraid to put their necks on the line to introduce discussion on a topic that is sometimes seen as being too difficult to raise. That is how we started on this file when there was very little public discourse about the effects individually as opposed to the banning aspect, which is seen as no solution. The member deserves credit for this, because that was the situation more than a year ago.

In response to the motion of the member for Winnipeg Centre, he was able to get the House of Commons health committee to do a study on the health effects of trans fats. He also pushed for expert witnesses and a review paper to provide testimony and also the discussion points that are so necessary to open the door to not only just the health aspects of this, but also to the industrial side effects in terms of the production and manufacturing of food products. He did that in a way that was very complementary and inclusive and I once again congratulate him on that.

The hon. member also did another important thing, and it is very important to recognize the hard work of his office. His office did a mail-back campaign to educate his constituents as well as those across the country. Speaking from the Windsor West perspective, I know that many of my constituents sent back the card to give solidarity to and support for us as parliamentarians to start talking about trans fats, their effects on human health, and how we can improve our products and the goods we are consuming, to have a healthier society for all of us.

That is important, because it recognizes the fact that right now in the system of the products we have available as food substances, individuals at the lower end of the income scale often cannot afford to purchase some of the healthier alternatives out there. There is a premium on natural foods. There is a premium on some of the foods with less additives. There is also an issue of access, as some individuals do not have the transportation or the time to get non-perishable and healthier alternatives. The member has been really diligent in expressing this concern that all Canadians need the opportunity to have a better selection of food sources and trans fats need to be addressed for all of us.

I note that the consultation process the hon. member undertook was extensive. I want to touch upon some of those organizations. In preliminary research, he looked at the World Health Organization, its suggestion about banning trans fats and the work done on the world front there. He consulted with the New England Journal of Medicine , looking at the research that had been done to ensure that the scientific background and merits were there before he actually launched into his work on this campaign.

From there, setting out the groundwork of the research, he then started to talk to groups and organizations that were very important and had great credibility in Canadian society, for example, the Heart and Stroke Foundation. What a great opportunity to get it involved in public policy. It is an organization that I support. My father has had bypass surgery and my grandfather prior to that. The Heart and Stroke Foundation has been leading the public charge on improving our cardiovascular health. I was very impressed to see that it was consulted right away.

He also went to universities and doctors, namely Dr. Bruce Holub from Guelph University, Dr. Ruth MacPherson from the University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Dr. Peter Jones from McGill University, Dr. Robert Issenman from McMaster University, and Dr. Sheila Innis from UBC. Those are just a few who have been consulted, although I know that there were others. It was an impressive view across Canada. He ensured that he spoke to people in different regions. He heard their concerns about what was happening in those regions.

Because of the scientific validation of this additive to our food, it is important to get the public to support the necessary transition. It is also important to get the government to act in a responsible way to ensure that we see changes, not just in words and emotion but to have a committee get things moving sot that we meet that year timeline and get real progress. It will also be important for those industries to have the validation that we support their changes.

There also was consultation with the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association. The member was very concerned about how this would affect not only the daily lives of Canadians but also employment. He had discussions with the association about its concerns on the phase in approach so we could accommodate its special needs and ensure that restaurant industry would continue thrive. We are dealing with a bad decision to allow a substance in our food chain that is clearly threatening not only our current health but how we are bringing up youth. We also are dealing with the employment aspect so our restaurants are not going to be the victims of a transition to cleaner, safer food processing. That is why I was very impressed.

As the industry critic for our party and one who enjoys restaurants, I want to commend him for ensuring that we will see them as part of the process. Many students and single mothers work in the restaurant sector. They need protection. Therefore, it is important that any transition not affect their vulnerable status. Often they do not receive the wages and compensation they deserve, and it is very difficult work. The risk associated with individual businesses and restaurants is very high. We certainly do not want to impede the progress that individuals and chains can make.

I would also like to note that he met with the vice-president of McDonald's to hear the concerns of that company. In Denmark, McDonald's has moved to comply with the trans fats legislation. We have not seen Ronald McDonald running out of Denmark, which would probably be pretty hard in those big shoes. Nonetheless, McDonald's has stayed in Denmark. We hope to see the same thing happen in Canada. We do not want to be harshly punitive with any franchise. We want to work with them. New York Fries should be commended for being pioneers in this. That is very important.

I want to summarize by saying that Canada is not alone in this. Denmark has already moved in a progressive state. I again commend the member for Winnipeg Centre for meeting with the ambassador of Denmark. He also met with the ambassador of New Zealand. It also is interested in pursuing what Canada is doing now. We want to ensure that Canada is at the forefront of human health through banning a substance or, as a first step, reducing it from our diets. This would have terrific effects for our health, economy and our ability to proceed as a society

Committees of the House

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Charlevoix—Montmorency, QC]

Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place among all parties and I believe that you would find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be deemed tabled and concurred in on division.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Supply

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague gave the breadth and scope of the issue and how important it is to Canadians. He laid out very well the work that has been done by our member for Winnipeg Centre, and indeed by our caucus in canvassing this issue so thoroughly. By working with other organizations and by bringing it forward to particularly groups like the Heart and Stroke Foundation, it is now in a state that we can present it in the House. It has a lot of credibility and it is gathering support from all sides of the House. We are very glad to see that. We see this as a substantial public health policy decision.

Could the member comment on how he thinks this will impact the health of children? One concern is how we ensure that the decisions we make provide the most healthy environment for our children. As parents, we try to pay attention to what our kids eat and do. We try to ensure that they have good nutrition. However, that is not always possible. We live in a very consumer oriented world, a world where there are fashions and fads, and kids are caught up by TV advertising.

If this motion were to be approved and resulted in legislation and regulation, does the member believe that it would be of benefit to children in a broad sense?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did not get a chance to discuss the human health factors on youth, which is my background previous to being here.

Right now we have 10 and 12 year olds who are being tested for high cholesterol, and that is wrong. That is the age at which they should have their hearts in the best of condition so they do not suffer consequences later on where they have to take medication for the rest of their lives. There is an expense on the medical side to that in terms of prescription drugs required. At the same time there is a human health expense from the cumulative effect of high cholesterol, and that is important.

As well, it is one of the reasons why I believe that only labelling as a formulation of protection of consumers is wrong. For example, labels on baby food do not provide protection. At the same time we are not providing the right choices for people to make.

We need to ensure that our kids have the proper choices in front of them. Sometimes they have busy lives, just like ourselves, and make the improper choices on the spur of the moment because there is little from which to choose. If trans fats in some of the fast foods are reduced, I believe this will help kids. It certainly will provide immediate benefits. The accumulative cycle of what we are doing now will be harmful to people as they age.

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the mover of the motion, this is very good initiative in terms of getting it forward, increasing education and information and other things like that. However, I would like to point out to the member that one of the most hazardous intakes into human bodies is that of cigarettes. For example, we know that approximately 100 people every day die from heart and lung associated diseases that come from smoking. To me that is a much greater issue than this one. Perhaps the member's party will then soon put forward a motion to ban the smoking of cigarettes.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I remember when I had my private member's motion in front of the House of Commons in the last session relating to environmental contaminants that affected human health and the banning of that. At that time the member said that he could not support the motion because he felt that I was calling for skunks to be considered as an environmental contaminant, which was absolute nonsense.

When we have identifiable factors that are affecting human health, we need to take appropriate action. The first step I would argue for cigarettes is to have the Canada pension plan stop investing in tobacco companies. That is the first step we can do to prevent this situation.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity today to rise in the House and speak in support of the excellent motion put forward by the NDP. It is well crafted and it provides a lot of substance. It provides very good direction to the government to come back within a year with legislation, if necessary, or regulation to ensure that we effectively eliminate trans fats in our foods where they are not naturally occurring.

The first thing I would like to do is thank our caucus member, the member for Winnipeg Centre, for the incredible amount of work he has done to get us to this point. His work is a testament to what a good Parliament can be and what the role of a private member can be.

We can be a pretty cynical lot in this place and we can do a lot of fighting. People watch that on TV during question period. People think that Parliament is about 45 minutes a day when we are going at it. That is part of what we do. It is about holding the government to account.

However, there is so much other work that takes place in the House, in committees and through private members' business as well. Particularly in this minority Parliament, Canadians have very good and high expectations about what will happen in this place.

Therefore, I am very proud that our member for Winnipeg Centre and the NDP caucus as a whole and our leader, the member for Toronto—Danforth, have worked on this issue to bring it forward. We want to be constructive. We want to ensure that we develop sound public policy. Anyone who does any research or investigation, even at a fairly superficial level, will know that the issue of trans fats is the single most important public health issue that we can address with no financial cost to Canadians.

How many hours have we debated and sometimes fought in the House over health care funding and the state of our health care system? How many times have we had debates and had differences over what we call the determinates of health, but more so around our health care system? Yet here is an issue where we can take some action, through public policy, to have a dramatic impact on the lives of all Canadians.

As has been said a number of times in the debate today, we are talking about saving the lives of approximately 1,000 Canadians who would otherwise die prematurely as a result of the prevalence of trans fats in our diet, in our consumer environment and in our society.

I would like to speak briefly about what this motion would do. It seeks is to commit the government to introducing legislation to ban trans fats by November 2005. First, it has a time line. It says within one year. We think that is very important. We want to ensure that progress is made on this issue and that it does not sit gathering dust on some shelf somewhere. Then everyone will say, “That was a good job, but that is the end of it”. We want to make progress on the issue.

The motion also commits the government to being guided by the Heart and Stroke Foundation findings, not the industry. It has done an incredible amount of work on the issue in a very objective scientific way, with consultations, including with industry and with other elements of the scientific community. We think the motion is very good because it builds on the work that has already been done.

The other thing the motion does is effectively bans processed or manufactured trans fats, not those that are naturally occurring.

We know, for example, that in Denmark trans fats have been limited to 2 grams of 100 grams of fat or of any oil or food product. The motion before us today effectively eliminates trans fats, except where they are naturally occurring. It is not possible for us to get to an absolute zero level because there are trans fats in things such as cheese and other products that are naturally occurring.

We want to aim at the processing that takes place, and that does not need to take place. Again, the member for Winnipeg Centre has given a very good history of how we got into trans fats in the first place and how it has taken years for there to be a public consciousness about what this stuff does to us and why it kills us.

I have a few facts about trans fats. There is no question that they are linked to health risks such as heart disease, diabetes and obesity.

Trans fats are in a wide range of food products, everything from cereal to baby food, cookies to french fries. Name it and trans fats appear to be there. They are the most prevalent in highly processed foods. The World Health Organization recommends that the daily intake of trans fats be zero, yet astoundingly they are found in 40% of the products on supermarket shelves. This is something I find to be really alarming. This really gets to the heart of the matter.

Issues have come up about choice. Why do we have to do anything? Does everybody not have a choice? Yes, theoretically we all have a choice about a whole bunch of things. However, the reality of daily life for most people, especially working families, and particularly people who live below the poverty line, people with low incomes who have very few economic choices, is they rely on convenience foods, processed and fast foods. People may not be aware of what it is they are actually ingesting.

Yes, there is stuff on labels, but has anyone ever tried to read those labels? People could spend double the time in the supermarket trying to read every jar, tin, plastic container and processed food. They could triple their time in supermarkets, the 7-Eleven or wherever trying to figure out from the tiny print on the labels what the heck it is they are buying. Even that may not be the full information because there is information to tell us that even when products indicate they are trans fat free, that may not necessarily be the case.

The issue of choice is an important argument to deal with. I would argue that the choice is there, but we have a responsibility as parliamentarians once we know that a very high risk exists to take some action based on sound scientific development and sound public policy. That is what the motion is about.

Living in this kind of consumer culture, more and more we are bombarded with messages and choices. How many different kinds of french fries or packaged food can people buy when they go to the supermarket? I actually believe that people want to make good choices. Parents do not want their kids to get sick. They do not want their kids to have high cholesterol. They want their kids to have a good diet.

In some communities people have very good choices. There may be organic food markets. The people who can pay what may be an extra cost at a local store like that have good choices before them, but that does not exist for everyone. We are talking about broad societal impacts and that is something we cannot ignore.

We should heed the work and recommendations of the World Health Organization which said earlier this year that governments should move to ban trans fats. That is exactly what we need to do. We need to show leadership in that area. Denmark has already done that and we need to do it as well to ensure that we are taking that kind of positive proactive action.

I hope the rest of the debate today is very positive and constructive. I hope that all members of the House will see that the motion is serious. It has real substance to it. It is about giving healthy choices to Canadians. It is about promoting the health of our families, which is something we should all support 100%.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I will not be able to get on the speaker's list for today so if you will indulge me, I would like to make a couple of comments and then ask the member a question.

It is clear from the debate that there is a strong consensus with regard to addressing the issue raised by the hon. member. There is also consensus that action should be taken.

The member has also raised the aspect of labelling. Although that is not part of the motion proper, it does raise the whole question of how we take this as a starting point for other things.

It is simply impossible to legislate human behaviour. That is why we have to rely on public education.

The member talked about the labelling of food products. We certainly know, for instance, with regard to labelling of beverage alcohol in the United States where there are health warning labels, there always has been this problem that the print is very small and unreadable.

Health Canada engaged research firms to do a study. It was felt that the principal area of communication to the public with regard to good health and lifestyle choices was in doctors' offices. That is where the literature should be, as part of the examination, et cetera.

This should be viewed as a starting point but we should continue, as legislators, to look for other opportunities through other existing venues to promote good public education for healthy lifestyle choices.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, of course I would agree that legislation on its own is not enough to bring about a change in people's attitudes. We also have to have continual education. I think people are looking for that. People are yearning for information that is accessible to them so they can find out what the hell they are eating and what is going on with their kids.

I would add to the member's comment by saying that education needs to be focused at parents, but it also needs to be focused at kids. Surely the place to do that is in our schools. Many school boards struggle with the issue of whether to allow junk food in schools, or to try and provide healthy choices. Sometimes there are corporate sponsors and whatnot.

By approving this motion and by ensuring that there is education we would be assisting bodies such as school boards in providing a much better education platform.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the remarks of the member for Vancouver East. As usual, she has brought her passion for her constituents and all Canadians to the fore in making her comments.

I want to focus on the issue of choice. From the time I have been in the House this morning, it seems to me that those who are sympathetic but not quite there are thinking that maybe labelling is where we ought to go. The support for that is it would provide choice. It would leave the impression that choice is the be all and end all.

We recognize the world leadership role of the World Health Organization, and I think of SARS in particular. In light of that, we ought to be taking what the World Health Organization has said about this issue very seriously. I would ask the member to comment on and underscore the issue of choice and why labelling under the guise of choice is really not the answer, given the scientific evidence that is before us now.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is where we get into the details of the debate about what it is before us.

Labelling is not a bad thing, but it is a very minimal step. We do know that even under the government's requirements for mandatory labelling to be phased in by the end of 2007, some things would be exempt, for example, single serving fast food portions. Labelling just does not get us there and I think this is what the member was getting at. We want to go beyond labelling and we want to effectively eliminate trans fats.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in today's debate. Any time we can draw attention to the importance of healthy living for Canadians, we are making a contribution to the health of our citizens.

I am also pleased to support the motion put forward today and to note the cooperation shown by all parliamentarians. I congratulate the member for Winnipeg Centre for bringing it to our attention.

I want to assure members that the government is already taking action to reduce the risks posed by trans fats in Canadian foods. I will expand on this later. I want to underline the fact that good progress has been made on nutritional labelling and that the response from food companies and other stakeholders has been positive.

It is also important to view the trans fat issue from a larger health perspective. While we will reduce processed trans fats, we must also examine the larger question about healthy eating and healthy living for Canadians and in the Canadian context.

First, I would like to address the comparison that was made between Canada and Denmark. We know that, since June 1, 2003, Denmark has had regulations limiting to 2% the trans fatty acid content of shortenings and oils sold directly to consumers or used as ingredients in foods. I want to emphasize that nothing similar has been put in place anywhere else in the world, even in other countries of the European Union.

It has been suggested that we take a similar approach here, in Canada. We must, however, take into account the major differences between the two countries.

The Danish and Canadian diets are different in that the Danes make a much greater use of animal fat and tropical oils than we do. Denmark is also a much smaller country than Canada. Because food production is much less centralized, it is not necessary for products to have as long a shelf life as they do in Canada. The stability provided by partially hydrogenated fats, which are the main source of trans fats, is thus not as essential in Denmark as it is in Canada. The Danes may therefore limit the use of these fats without changing their eating habits.

On September 9 of this year the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada convened a group of scientific experts to discuss trans fats. That group expressed the same reservation that I just made. They made the point that a measure to limit trans fats in the way I just described may have been appropriate in Denmark but not necessarily in Canada. More than that, they expressed concern that with an imposed limit of 2% trans fat, as is the case in Denmark, man-made trans fat could simply be replaced by natural trans fat or by saturated fats in processed foods and thus there would be no improvement to health.

These experts also agreed that there is no evidence to indicate that 2%, which is the level commonly cited by proponents of a ban and the one used in Denmark, is the level where health benefits are optimized. Their view was that it is essential that the healthiest alternatives be used as a substitute for fats and oils high in trans fatty acids. This means that the relative risk of trans versus saturated fats requires further consideration given the Canadian diet.

That is not the only work being done to explore the best way for dealing with trans fat, beyond relatively simple statements, in order to capture all the complex factors at stake.

I am happy to recognize the conscientious work being done on this issue by two members of the Senate, who, besides being senators, are also internationally renowned heart specialists Senators Yves Morin and Wilbert Keon.

Senators Morin and Keon have joined the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada in considering the best approach to dealing with the issue of trans fat in foods. They have consulted scientific experts and food industry representatives to get their views on the best way to proceed.

I am happy to recognize the suggestion put forward by the Minister of State for Public Health that the Standing Committee on Health could provide a forum for all parliamentarians to make their views known. I would also expect that the committee would receive representations from the food processing and service industries, health associations, government, academia and others.

I do want to underline that this debate needs to recognize that we are already seeing action on trans fats. I would like to reiterate that Health Canada is already working in partnership with the Heart and Stroke Foundation and other stakeholders. That work is taking place in a fashion that is collaborative in nature and scientific in orientation. It is an effort that we are happy to recognize and draw on.

I talked about implementing nutritional labelling that will also indicate the trans fat content. In anticipation of new labelling requirements, the food industry is already making an effort to reduce or eliminate the content of trans fat in food.

At least 13 major food product companies have announced they would reduce or eliminate trans fat from the food they produce. In fact, the major margarine brands, for the most part, are already trans fat free.

The agricultural processing sector is also responding to the increased awareness of the impact of trans fats among Canadians. Canadian industries have listened to the evidence. They know that our major vegetable oil, canola, is susceptible to the production of trans fats when it is processed into semi-solid fat that food producers use.

These producers have acted, on the encouragement of the federal government over many years, to adopt interesterification, which is an alternative means of producing semi-solid fat without trans fats. The final point I want to make about healthy living and public health in general is that our state of health is the result of an interplay of many, many factors.

There is no simple solution for ensuring optimal health, but things such as abstaining from smoking, eating in moderation, having a balanced diet and exercising regularly have clear positive results.

I am pleased that, in building a new approach to public health through the new public health agency of Canada and with the appointment of the first chief public health officer of Canada, we will be able to focus on more effective efforts to prevent chronic diseases like cancer and heart disease, prevent injuries, and respond to public health emergencies and infectious disease outbreaks. All those are elements in helping Canadians to achieve the best possible health.

As part of this, we will build on the work that is already taking place by offering collaboration with the provinces and territories, and with many other partners to keep Canadians healthy, including the work on food and nutrition issues that are part of our debate today.

[Marc Godbout, Liberal, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, for his excellent presentation. It is obvious that he is well informed on this issue.

I think his overview of what the government has done to date on this was excellent. Perhaps he could suggest to us what the next steps to consider would be in connection with the initiative we are discussing today?

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his excellent question.

It is recognized that the best way to get results is through public pressure from the Canadian public for more information. The public will put pressure on the market and action will be forthcoming.

This cannot be the only approach, however, We have to see whether there are regulatory measures or arrangements that need to be taken, or whether the legislation needs to be changed. These matters need to be debated, both here in the House and in the Standing Committee on Health. As the motion states, we need to be guidedby the findings of the task force, which includes Public Health, theHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, the agri-food industry and many others. We need to see what their recommendations will be.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the lull in time that people allowed me to make it into the House. I would like to indicate right off the bat that I was not eating trans fats in the lobby. It was purely a nutritional vegetable meal.

I am pleased that we have the opportunity in the House today to discuss the whole issue of trans fats in our food. I have listened to a number of the speeches this morning. My colleague from Winnipeg Centre did a fantastic job putting all the facts and figures out about trans fats and the impact they will have on the health of Canadians. He even talked about the impact that would not be felt within the industry. He indicated, and I am going to emphasize this as well, that the industry itself, the vegetable oil and canola industry, recognizes that trans fats are a problem.

I have the information that came from the canola growers and the vegetable oil producers in Canada. I want to read one of the sections that they have put out as information about this issue. The Vegetable Oil Industry of Canada states that it agrees with and supports the position of the World Health Organization and specifically its recommendation that saturated fats and trans fats be replaced by polyunsaturated vegetable oils to lower coronary heart disease.

There is no issue here. Everyone involved recognizes that trans fats are unhealthy. Quite frankly, I might say that trans fats are deadly. They really are. There is no question.

As a parent and now as a grandparent, I feel quite responsible for the fact that probably over the course of all of my children's lives that I put trans fats on their plates and risked their lives. It hits home when we see it in that sense. I can say now that it is rare that our grandchildren will get them. Those of us who know about trans fats will try to avoid them as much as possible, after this point in time when we have found out how bad trans fats are.

It is not always that easy to find out about trans fats or other things that are not healthy. I say that in response to one of my colleagues from the Conservatives who this morning suggested that people have to take responsibility for their own actions. He mentioned about drinking so much pop and that he gained weight and how much weight he had lost since he quit drinking pop. That is all well and good, if the member recognizes that what is happening to him is because of excesses and he tends not to care about his health and does not pay any attention.

However, for a lot of people in our country, it is a matter of not being able to have that choice. There are a number of people within my riding of Churchill who do not have access to healthy foods. Even if the healthy foods are there, they do not have the dollars to buy them. Many of them are in a situation where they are living off the shelf with the cheaper products that are not going to be hindered in the shipping process. Therefore, they are at risk.

I think it is imperative that we as parliamentarians put in place legislation that takes those trans fats right out of the system, as my colleague from Winnipeg Centre indicated and it is indicated within our motion, to as low a value as possible. We recognize there are some foods that have natural trans fats and we cannot deal with that.

I also want to note the fact that it really would be irresponsible for us to suggest that it is just up to individuals to make a decision. We all recognize that children will not necessarily read the labels. I can tell the House that there are a lot of adults who cannot read the labels and not just because they cannot read. Some of the writing on the labels is very small and when people reach my age, and do not have their glasses on in the store, they do not have a fighting chance.

As my colleague from the Bloc mentioned earlier today, I for one have tried to do that because I, as well, have high cholesterol. I went through a process of how I was going to do my darndest not to support those brand name drug companies. I can boycott them and do whatever I can, but when it comes to one's health it is tough to do that. I was going to make every effort not to have to go on that medication to get my cholesterol down, so I faithfully went on a program of cutting my fats and cutting my cholesterol. I thought I was doing great until one day when I was at work my assistant said, “But are you looking at the trans fats?”.

Then I started paying attention to the trans fats. I started finding out that all those wonderful things I had done to keep my levels down were shot because I was eating trans fats. Quite frankly, I was darn annoyed because I had really made an effort to do this.

In spite of what we might think sometimes, Canadians trust our system for the most part. Canadians think that everything out there is safe because it is being allowed in our system. Canadians have faith in our system. When there is something inside a product that really is poisonous and toxic to our system, we do not think it will be on our table. We do not think it will be on the shelves. In reality it is. That feeling of safety is there because people in Canada trust our system. Canadians trust the system to be safe. As a result of that trust, they tend not to read the labels. They think everything is good and it will not harm us.

It is unfair to say that people are irresponsible if they do not read the labels. They are trusting. They trust our system to be fair to them. They trust the system to keep them safe.

At this moment I want to indicate that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

I think it is extremely important that we take trans fats right out of the system. There has been some talk out there that the NDP really got an issue this time with trans fats and that no one even cares because we have all these serious issues out there.

This may not be that sexy an issue that they speak of. It is not missile defence. It is not out there gunning for the government's scandalous approaches and the lack of dollars, the misplaced dollars. Trans fats is not that issue; however, it is an issue that directly hits home to the health of Canadians and their safety. That is what makes it so important.

The NDP believes strongly in our health system. We believe in a sustainable health system. This is part of a sustainable health system. It hits at the foundation and where the problem is, and improving the health of Canadians to make our health system more sustainable.

It is crucially important that we support this legislation. I am hoping the motion will pass when it comes to a vote. When that happens, we will hold the government accountable to ensure that it follows through. That is what is crucially important. I encourage all Canadians who are listening to make a point of letting their representatives know that they want to see this motion passed, and that they want to see a bill put in place.

I also want to acknowledge the industry. I mentioned the vegetable oil producers. There is also the canola industry. I am originally from Saskatchewan and I must say that I am one of those people, a New Democrat to the heart, where if something is bad it will be boycotted. I faithfully do all of those things.

As a result, because much of the canola was being produced in Saskatchewan, I have faithfully used canola for years. Again, I was a little bit upset when I found out that hydrogenated products were being used and that they were probably killing me off over the years. However, I want to acknowledge that the canola industry has been working very hard for the last number of years to put in place different types of canola that are better.

I want to indicate that the canola industry supports the fact that trans fats are not good for people. It is working hard to put in place better types of canola.

I recognize the industry's concern that saturated fats might be used more than other types of fats now. If this motion were to pass, we would have to ensure that we have limits on saturated fats. We must continue the education to address the problem, as my colleague from the Conservative Party mentioned. Excesses of anything are no good for us. It does not matter whether we are drinking one bottle of Coke a day, if that bottle of Coke is hard on the person, or whether it is five bottles, and no offence to the Coke industry and let me just say cola, but none of that is good for us in excess.

Trans fats, even in the smallest amounts, are not good for us. That is why it is so crucial that we act responsibly and get them out of the Canadian food supply.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the fine speech we have just heard from the member for Churchill. I wish to pick up on one of the points that she made about the way that Canadians have an expectation that the health system and the food system combined are safe in this country.

In that regard, I would ask her about some of the criticisms that we have had as a party, as we have proposed this motion to deal with the substantial reduction, if not the outright ban of trans fats in our foods. One of the criticisms that has been levelled is that we should leave it to the industry and allow it to put in place voluntary regulations and controls.

Would the member feel that this would be a viable alternative for the country to follow?

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is and I will tell him why. We always see in a system that if people are allowed to put a product on the market at a lesser cost and not have to care about the health of Canadians, they are going to do it.

Again, quite frankly, I see lower income Canadians as the target of those types of companies. Those of us who are able to become educated about trans fats and can afford the extra dollars to buy a slightly more expensive brand are going to do that to get rid of the trans fats. People on low incomes or, in a lot of cases, people with no income living off just bare-bones social assistance, cannot do that. So I think it is important that we take the product right out of the system.

As well, we would level the playing field. We always hear that we do not want to make it unfair for certain businesses. This would level the playing field for all those involved and make it okay for companies to go ahead and do this. Maybe they are going to incur some initial costs, but it should be fair all around. Everybody has to get rid of it because it is unhealthy. That should be our defining factor: this is absolutely unhealthy and unsafe. That is what we should be doing.

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the member for Churchill for a very good speech, but I too am thinking that there is a dilemma we face here, that is, if we are going to go down the road of banning substances that are harmful, the list is huge. There are many things on the list that I think are considerably more dangerous than the trans fats, although I am not arguing about that. I think there is some science to back this up. I would like to see more studies. I also think, however, that if we were to ban some things we may be introducing some other elements in terms of preserving food, et cetera, that might be even worse. There needs to be a good timeline granted for these studies to make sure that we do this thing right and do not have too many unintended consequences.

I am very concerned about this and also about the fact that there are many substances like this that we hear about from time to time. I will not bother mentioning them, because we all know what they are. It would be unfair for me to once again talk about the cola drinks to which I was addicted for many years. They are very, very bad, and young people suck in the advertising for these things.

How do we ever bring this to an end in terms of banning things that people are going to eat or drink and are harmful to themselves?

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raises a very good point. He talked about the cola drinks that he was addicted to. I have to think that if there is a product out there which is that addictive and an industry preying on young people with that product, then I would say, using his terminology of addiction, that maybe we do have to look at some levels of it. It has to be done the same way we did with the use of tobacco products when we knew the industry was trying to get people addicted just to sell a product, with no consideration for the health of the individual or for the cost to the country involved.

I look at this in depth in the sense that a harmful product is one thing and one can make decisions based on whether a product is going to be harmful, but trans fats are deadly. They go beyond harmful. They are deadly. That is recognized. We do not need any more studies. There are enough studies out there. Even the canola industry and the vegetable oil industry recognize that. That is what is important. We recognize it. Let us do the right thing.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for sharing her time with me this afternoon. In a number of ways we have some very similar views and I will be looking to expound upon those this afternoon

As some hon. members have mentioned, this breaks down to a principle of governance. Is there a role for government in stepping in on the food industry and starting to legislate things that the industry would rather direct itself? I will be making some arguments this afternoon that say yes, we absolutely do need to step in, because the self-regulatory environment is the environment that allows for industry to do as it will, over time having self-monitoring and allowing this process to go on. It is harmful and in fact is costing us lives and billions of dollars in our health care system.

I would like to talk about junk food, because in a sense that is what we are talking about here. We are talking about food that is junk, that we would consider garbage in some senses, because of its harmful effects on people every day, particularly young people. I stand here as both the environment critic for our party and the youth critic. I will mention this a little later on and speak about why I think this is both an environmental and a youth issue.

This is about economics. We will have a debate next week on the costs of health care, about how much to spend on health care, about promises of billions more, and about Canadians demanding more support for their health care services. Very little discourse is given over to preventive medicine, to preventive effects that we in the House, in this legislature, can make to actually positively affect our health care costs.

We seem to worry about Canadian citizens only when they end up in the emergency room. We seem to worry about them only when they end up on the operating table. Then we discuss how much money we have to spend on them, as opposed to taking simple, low cost initiatives like we have in front of us here in banning trans fats and making a statement to industry that this is no longer acceptable.

The decision on this should be easy. I agree with my colleague from Churchill that when a government does not know what to do about an issue, it decides to study it. It sends the issue to committee where it is studied some more in blue ribbon panels.But we have the studies. We have looked at trans fats. They are a very serious determinant of health. They have a very negative effect on health. My colleague is absolutely correct. Trans fats are not just bad for us; they will kill us. The science is in on it. This decision should be easy.

There is a question about exactly what we are waiting for. In fact, it seems to be a point of indecision about not wanting to make any bold moves. In this government, frankly, obviously due to the representation that we see in front of us here today, the concern over this issue is not very strong. The government would like to pass it along, perhaps to another study group, rather than take any bold initiative. Many of my colleagues on all sides of the House have been very frustrated with the lack of forward progress on any particular issue. Health care is another one. Simply throwing billions more at the issue is not the answer. Romanow talked about reform and here is the place to do it.

Industry will always balk at regulations. That is its job. That is the job the lobbyists perform at the little soirees we attend here. It is their job to make sure that the regulations, the so-called red tape, are not in place so that the profit motive can remain ultimate. They always ensure that Canadian companies have the most profitability and that there are no regulations to prevent anything. That is simply wrong, of course, and that is the whole idea of having a legislative body.

There is a long and sordid history of industries resisting any form of legislation which they know to be right. A good example is that of the auto industry and seat belts. For many years the auto industry simply said that seat belts cost too much money to put into cars and that it would ruin the industry if any sort of legislation anywhere was ever implemented that forced automakers to put seat belts into cars.

I dare say that if any automakers came forward today and suggested that they would make a new model of car without seat belts, they would, first, not be able to sell any, and second, would not even be able to get the car out into the market, because it would be illegal. That is because at some point government stepped in and said that seat belts were a good idea, that self-regulation was no longer working. That technology existed for years.

Technologies do exist to replace trans fats. We have heard that from industry. I have some quotes, one from the Canadian Food and Consumer Products companies, which states that the companies share the ultimate objectives set out in this motion: to provide consumers with healthier alternatives to trans fats. They say that they understand the importance of identifying replacements for their trans fat foods as quickly as possible and their member companies are moving expeditiously to do so.

I would like to give them a little more encouragement. I would like the House to say that not only are they encouraged to do so, they are mandated to do so and they must do so in order to bring their products to market. This is not an anti-industry movement, as opposed to what any other member in the House might say.

Another example is asbestos, which was quite a contentious issue for many years because it was a debate on environment and health versus jobs. But at some point somewhere a government took leadership and said that asbestos was killing us, causing cancer, and killing our children in our schools. Yet the House is still faced with the challenges of asbestos in many of the walls of the House, again because of a lack of leadership, a lack of direction on something that we know kills us. Perhaps there is some motive in there, but I would rather not speculate.

Smoking is another example. It is clearly targeting the youth market. As youth critic, I understand how the smoking industry works and what it focuses toward. Trans fats almost can be lumped, so to speak, into that same issue and same focus.

Of course these foods taste great. Of course they are appealing, particularly to young people, and of course these foods are something they are going to demand in the marketplace. The marketplace goes after young people. When motivating families to buy certain foods, the marketplace does not go after parents. It goes after the children, who are much more susceptible and easy to manipulate.

Therefore, looking at simply taking trans fats out and replacing them with something that is much healthier would be far more important than simply saying that the industry will do this on its own.

The very last environmental example I would like to raise, which is another industry one, is that of CFCs. Just the other day I was reading over some documents about when governments around the world were looking to ban CFCs. We know they are harmful to the ozone and human health. Industry said then that the industries would collapse, that children would die because there would not be any refrigeration for vaccines, that it would be a travesty, thousands of jobs would be lost and it would not help the environment. Then it was again a government that took some leadership and said that this was important.

Years later, industry is doing fine. The reports we are getting back from industries now are that this has been a profitable piece of legislation for them. They have made tens of millions of dollars from this one piece of legislation to ban these things.

Again industry says there is no need to legislate, no need to ban and no need to make certain directions. I call to the attention of members the examples I have just given. Industry's mandate is not to serve the community. It is not to serve the country of Canada. Its mandate is to make profit for its shareholders. I have no problem with that. I ran a small business myself and I understood my mandate. My mandate was to make sure that I could keep my employees going and I did well by the community.

Our mandate here is different. Our mandate here is to ensure that we have a viable economy in Canada while ensuring the health of Canadians. Our mandate is also to try to control costs, which we expend all the time, costs such as those we are going through right now in the budgetary consultations.

To simply say that health care has enough money in it is wrong. To say that the answer is to throw more money at it is also wrong. We have to look at the ways that Romanow considered to absolutely reduce the costs and to, again, prevent people from ending up in hospitals in the first place.

Type 2 childhood diabetes is a serious concern in my riding. I have a very rural riding with a great native population. Native leaders are constantly coming to me saying that we have to do something about the epidemic of type 2 childhood diabetes. Clearly this act would push us toward doing something about that.

I will end my discussion here simply because this is a call for leadership from the government. After hearing some support from government, I am a little unsure if it is ready to go out and bring the big stick, as it were, toward industry. Again, there is a call on this lack of leadership. For once, please, in the new House, in this conciliatory Parliament, in a Parliament where we actually consult with one another, let us do this.

We have done this. We have consulted with people in the health care industry and in the manufacturing industry and we know this can be done. Government needs to fulfill its role, which is to provide leadership for Canadians and protect Canadians.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by the hon. member and I agree that our mandate is to work hard for Canadians and to make sure that the food we provide in Canada is safe.

I believe the mandate is also to provide good decisions. Good decisions are based on the information we have.

I have a question for the hon. member. Why would the mover of the motion be opposed to having this referred back to committee to have all the information put on the table so that the decision the House makes is based on all the information? Why would we want to rush through this and make a decision that may turn out to be the wrong decision? Would the member support having this go back to committee to get all the information?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in fact I would not recommend sending it back to committee. I understand that the hon. member is concerned. What I would ask him to do is consult with us, particularly the hon. member to my right, who has done a great deal of work and research on this. The research is in.

I will be perfectly frank with the House. I am new to this file. It has only been a week that this has been front and centre on my desk. I am learning as I go. Initially, similar to the hon. member for Churchill, I was not necessarily convinced that this was the most pressing thing. The more that I read on this particular issue, the more I am convinced that in this is a role and a place for government.

If we send it to committee and have it go around the block, my real concern in a minority government is when exactly a decision will come forward. Does the health committee have other concerns on its plate? Absolutely. There is a bunch more.

I would encourage the member to come across the floor some time for a brief visit, consult with us and find out what we have been finding out. In fact, the evidence is extremely strong. We are learning from the Heart and Stroke Foundation that this is a place where we can do strong work together.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Skeena region of northern B.C. for raising an issue that I do not think has had enough time dedicated to it so far and that is the disproportionate impact of this toxic, harmful food product on low income people and, in some cases, rural and aboriginal people.

It is my feeling that it takes a certain amount of economic stability to have a healthy diet for one's family these days. A real class issue is involved here as this particular public health hazard affects certain demographics and economic and social groups.

I wonder if my colleague would comment on that.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague made an excellent point. Oftentimes security is associated with the ability to make choices. My riding is a rural riding and there is a great deal of poverty within it. It is made up of 30% to 35% of first nations. When I am at the supermarket or attending community festivals I see people who are not eating properly and that is based partly upon the fact that they do not have a choice. On our current salaries, we as members of Parliament can make good choices for ourselves in the supermarket. We can choose whether to acquire products that have trans fat or not.

Compared to 15 or 20 years ago, the increase in the so-called junk food industry has been huge. On a recent trip to the United States I noticed that not only was one aisle completely taken up with these types of products but there were not two because one was not enough. These foods are extraordinarily inexpensive, easy to use and can be packed into a kid's lunch. The industry's motive is to make its food accessible, easy to attain and as cheap as possible and as expedient as possible for families.

The difficulty is when families do not have a choice and are unable to make healthy choices for their families because their budgets are restricted. In rural communities like mine, people who do not have a lot of money do not get fresh fruits and vegetables in the wintertime.

The member is absolutely correct. This is an issue that impacts mostly on low and middle income families, particularly first nations.