Debates of Nov. 18th, 2004

Supply

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to finish off my remarks today. Then my colleague will pick up with the other 10 minutes.

In my remaining time, I would like to focus on the comments made by my colleague from Churchill, which are germane to this debate. She talked about the fact that for the most part Canadians, like people in many countries, are awfully confused about what was healthy and what was not healthy. For most of us, it seems that every other day there is a new study from somewhere pointing out that something that was once thought healthy, now is not or vice versa, or counter-arguing a report that came out a few weeks ago. I think many of us in Canada reach the point where we throw our arms in the air and say that we cannot keep track any more. Then we go ahead and follow what we think is common sense.

Common sense for Canadians, and this is the point that my friend from Churchill made, is if something is known scientifically to be harmful to our children in particular, their Parliament, this place, would be responsible enough to ensure that those products are not contained in anything that are lawfully sold on the shelves of stores across this nation. We, in the NDP caucus, believe we have reached that point with trans fatty acids.

The World Health Organization does not give out alarmist messages or lightly say that something should be banned. Yet it has very clearly said that it is important to deal with the public health in a way that is effective for people. That means labelling will not do it. It means it has to be banned. That is why we have taken this stand.

We long ago passed the point where we were not sure of the science, so we would go with a label to be on the safe side. That is not the safe side any more. The safe side says, “Ban it. Do not let our children ingest these foods”. Other countries have now taken this stand.

There is the business side to this. Some of those very corporations and businesses that we might expect to hear say that this is a problem for them, that it will cost jobs or increase costs, all legitimate concerns, have already dealt with it. As has been pointed out, a number of major suppliers of the kinds of the food that have trans fats already have removed them. The entire country of Denmark has banned them. As has been pointed out, McDonald's has outlets there. There are no trans fats in the food at the McDonald's stores in Denmark. If it is good enough for the children of Denmark, does it not behoove us as Canadian parliamentarians to take the same steps to protect our children? That is what this is about. It is about public health. It is about protecting children. It is about doing the right thing.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the motion, after the preamble, reads:

--this House calls on the government to enact regulations, or if necessary present legislation that effectively eliminates processed trans fats, by limiting the processed trans fat content of any food product sold in Canada to the lowest level possible.

It does not say ban them, notwithstanding they may be in other jurisdictions. Even a speaker from the NDP indicated that there are many products which naturally contain trans fats. There also is the whole problem of how we coordinate this with the business and industry.

There is a question about whether we are talking about banning or whether we are talking about lowest level possible, notwithstanding that even the health authorities say a zero consumption is the recommended consumption of trans fats.

The question I have has to do with legislating behaviour. Clearly, we cannot do that. Public education will to be a big part of this. Would the member share with the House some of his thoughts on how we educate the public in the best possible fashion and how we deal with other jurisdictions, for instance, school boards that have to communicate with children and even take it home when they see them eating unhealthy foods?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member raised a number of things. First, he talked about the lowest possible levels. Yes, I shortened that to use the word “ban”. If we read the material that has been provided, we see that the lowest possible level is de facto, a banning. Therefore, we are saying that we get as low as we possibly can. No one is trying to pass a law or regulation that is beyond the means of what can physically and practically be done.

If the member wishes to parse the words, the member is correct in recognizing that there are some minuscule amounts left at the end. That is why we have used the word “lowest” possible, but it is de facto in the material referred to as a ban, that it has the same effect.

The member talked about coordinating with business. That is why we have mentioned the fact that already major corporations have taken the steps necessary. I did not hear about any big massive job loss or any massive increase in costs. I have heard that corporations, to give them the benefit of the doubt, want to provide food that is as healthy as can be or at the very least does not contain known toxins. The whole issue of pushing this through law is to ensure that they actually go about it, because not everyone will do it voluntarily.

The last thing is on education. Seat belts have to be worn by law. Helmets in Ontario have to be worn by law. Yes, let us educate, but let us make sure that law is there and let us bloody well enforce it.

[Jeremy Harrison, Conservative, Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I do not even know where to start with the comments by the hon. member. If it were up to the NDP, people would be going to a safe injection site to inject heroine and be arrested on leaving for having a bag of potato chips in their pockets. This is utterly ridiculous. Perhaps we could get some comment on that from the hon. member.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that after the debates we have had here today, the hon. member stands up and hands out such gibberish. I truly do not understand the point the hon. member is trying to make.

If things were as straightforward and linear as he likes to make them, we would not need laws. We would not need all of us here. The member knows very well that the issues he raises have nothing to do with the matter before us right now.

If the member wants to debate what is going on in Vancouver in terms of harm reduction, by all means, bring it on. We in the NDP would love to have that debate, just like we love having this debate because it is about health, it is about children and it is about our responsibilities to them.

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

Mr. Speaker, food safety and security touches all of us. A growing body of research shows that trans fats contribute to health problems, such as heart disease, diabetes and obesity. I would like to talk about some of the other factors that impact on people's ability to have access to safe food.

One of the things that we know about is food insecurity. Food insecurity is defined as the inability to access nutritional food in sufficient quantities. This can be related to poverty, low income, neighbourhoods without supermarkets and lack of knowledge on how to prepare food. Food insecurity is significantly associated with poor health, chronic disease, obesity, major depression, stress and food allergies. Food insecurity directly ties into what is actually in the content of our food.

Some mothers reduce their food intake to ensure their children get better food. This compounds the problems of trans fatty acids in foods because these women eat them as a higher proportion of their diet. I have heard stories from mothers who talked about struggling to balance their desire to provide an adequate diet along with their inability to access a sufficient income to provide that safe food.

Lack of choice impacts on people's ability to eat safe food as well. The report, “The Cost of Eating in BC”, 2003, states that a low income family would need to spend up to 44% of its disposable income on a nutritious diet. This compares to the average Canadian who spends only 17%. That is shameful in a country like ours that has access to adequate food and resources to adequately feed all of our population.

Pregnant women living alone on income assistance would be in the most desperate situations.

We know that at least 20% of women and children live in poverty in Canada today. These consumers end up buying food full of trans fat because they are the cheapest option. If the trans fat in those foods were replaced with a healthier fat, their overall health would improve.

Low incomes reduce choice in food buying decisions. Lower income neighbourhoods do not always have supermarkets or stores that provide healthier choices. We need to ensure that the food that is available for people in those lower income residential neighbourhoods is safe food to eat.

Lower literacy levels also remove choice from some consumers as they cannot read and understand or use the food label to make an informed choice. That is one reason that labelling, as a stand alone option, would be insufficient to protect our Canadian population from poor food choices.

Let me talk a bit about literacy. Low literacy limits opportunities, resources and the control which people have over their lives. As a result, people with low literacy have limited opportunities to make informed choices about their own lifestyle. The following information is from the paper on “How Does Literacy Affect the Health of Canadians?”

This is a fact. Twenty percent of Canadians have very low levels of literacy. These people with low literacy skills have limited access to health information, including both written and verbal. Much available information about health, both from health organizations and practitioners, as well as other sources such as the media, is in a written form and therefore very difficult or impossible for many people to understand. The printed word is not a preferred or credible source of information for many people who tend to obtain their information about health via word of mouth.

Health is also a gender issue. As the women's critic, I am pleased to be able to talk about how trans fat impacts on health and women.

Heart disease is the number one killer of women in Canada. We know that the use of trans fats directly contributes to heart disease in Canada. We also know that fat intake affects women differently than it does men. Research is beginning to look at health issues for women as opposed to health issues for men.

Research from the University of British Columbia shows trans fats pass through the placenta to the fetus. In Europe, another study has found that the higher trans fats in the diet of a pregnant woman, the more likely they are to give birth prematurely and have smaller babies. This is a serious lifetime health issue for women and children. I would urge us to take a look at legislation that protects children from being exposed to trans fats in the womb.

Once born, trans fats ingested by mothers is passed to their babies through breast milk. A study by Health Canada found that Canadian breast milk contained among the highest levels of trans fats reported, and that is a shameful statement to date.

In a nurses health study, women who consumed the greatest amount of trans fats in their diet had a 50% higher risk of heart attack compared to women who consumed the least amount of trans fatty acids.

Trans fats may increase the risk of type 2 diabetes in women as well. In a 2001 study, researchers found that when women replaced 2% of the trans fats that they ate with polyunsaturated fat, they dropped their risk of diabetes by 40%. This impacts in a major way on our health care system. A recent study showed that high levels of dietary trans fats doubled the risk of colon cancer in menopausal women not on hormone replacement therapy.

There is more. Trans fats have also been implicated in developing breast cancer. A Dutch study suggested an association between the amount of trans fats stored in the body and the risk of disease in women after menopause.

Dr. Walter Willett, a physician and chairman of the Department of Nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health, was co-author of a 1993 report on 75,521 women who were tracked in the Harvard nurses study. Women with a high intake of trans fats were 1.5 times more likely to develop coronary disease than women with a low intake of these so-called foods. Data from a preliminary study suggested that diets high in trans fatty acids were associated with an increased risk of preeclampsia, which is induced hypertension and very dangerous for both mother and fetus.

The accumulated evidence on how trans fats affect women and children, and our population as a whole, is a really important issue before the House today. I would urge members to seriously consider supporting this motion. It is the age old story. When we invest in preventive care up front, we save money in the long run.

All of the evidence talks about the fact that as we continue to have trans fats in foods available to the Canadian population, we are actually increasing our health care costs over the long run as we need to continue to spend money on acute care dealing with things like diabetes, heart attacks and cancer. We are putting our health care system under undue pressure. It is really important that we support this motion to ban trans fats and look after our population as a whole.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the fledgling northern Ontario separatist party, I would welcome the city of Hamilton as a sister city in the new province of northern Ontario. I think it is a wonderful city and is always undermined by having been so close to Toronto. Even though my colleague from Hamilton Centre is not here, I would welcome him in the new northern Ontario caucus if he so chooses. I should not be speaking behind his back, but he is a bit of a curmudgeon. I do not think he would want to sit beside me, except that he has been forced to in the House. Needless to say, I am off topic.

I would like to ask the hon. member if she could perhaps enlighten us a little more about the devastating impacts of diabetes, particularly among the first nations communities in the region she represents?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely correct. First nations communities suffer from diabetes at a higher proportion than the population as a whole. Certainly, my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan has a significant number of first nations people living in the community. The impact of diabetes has been the subject of a number of studies in our communities and they are working very hard to combat that.

Trans fats is a significant factor in the diets of many people. I talked about low incomes and food security. We have a responsibility to ensure that our food sources are safe. Mandatory labelling will not do it. We really need to take a stand and say trans fats are unacceptable in our diets.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the NDP for taking on this initiative because there is no doubt that trans fats are a very major issue in our diets, in the health of our children, and our community.

However, I have some concern about this whole move toward a zero tolerance policy. I thought that we lived in a country where we have some freedom of choice. Healthy choices are part of that and we make decisions every day in our diets and in the foods we eat. I want to hear what the member's thoughts are on respecting people's choice, on educating them, and allowing them to make the choices for proper eating.

I have a concern that if we are going to have zero tolerance, why do we not have zero tolerance on cigarettes? Why do we not have a zero tolerance on alcohol or zero tolerance on marijuana possession? Let us just take it right out of the system. If we are going to really get serious about regulating the health of Canadians, then let us be consistent; however, if we are not, let us give people the right to choose and the right to look at these issues. Let us give them the education.

I also want to raise the issue that a lot of the foods we consume are imported. How are we going to police that and how do we do that without affecting our trading relationships?

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

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of issues that the hon. member raised and part of it revolves around zero tolerance. There are historical precedents where we have indicated that certain substances will not be either in our food or in our environment.

It is incumbent upon us to act once we realize something like trans fats have such a serious adverse impact on health of Canadians. It would be irresponsible to not take the issue on and ban it. Education will also be necessary in terms of how people look at fats in their diet. A number of organizations like the Heart and Stroke Foundation are working very actively with the Canadian population to put forward an education program.

As to trading, Denmark is one country that has banned trans fats. I do not see the collapse of the Danish economy as a result of that. I would urge us to take a look at how Denmark has effectively implemented this and determine how that will affect how we deal with some of the imports that come into our country. Certainly, there are a number of imports that we would look at as not being safe and we would not engage in that behaviour.

[Michael John Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to stand in the House and support this motion. More than that, I would like to congratulate the New Democratic Party, particularly the member for Winnipeg Centre, for bringing this issue to the House.

This issue is of significant importance to me in large part because of my background as a past president of the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Nova Scotia and a board member of the national Heart and Stroke Foundation. As well as congratulating my colleagues who have brought this forward, I would like to congratulate members of the Heart and Stroke Foundation, people like Mary Elizabeth Harriman and Jane Farquharson, who have done so much work both nationally and in my own province of Nova Scotia, and Sally Brown. It is also a time to honour some people who have done great work for the Heart and Stroke Foundation in Nova Scotia, people who were, like me, past presidents: Rollie Jamieson, Ross Backman, Rick Edwards, Neil Black, and many others who have done great work in bringing this motion forward.

I would like to talk a little bit about the health of Canadians in general. Not only are we concerned about the sustainability of our health care system in Canada, but emerging threats from new viruses like West Nile, SARS, and now the avian flu. They have raised questions and concerns about our capacity and readiness to respond, and prevent life threatening epidemics. Our recent experience with SARS demonstrates that only too well.

However, I want to talk about another crisis in Canada, one that captures fewer headlines, but currently kills more Canadians on a daily basis than the new and emerging communicable diseases combined. I am talking about the so-called silent epidemic of largely preventable chronic disease. Each year in Canada more than three-quarters of deaths result from four groups of chronic diseases. These disease groups, which are approaching epidemic proportions, are ones we are all familiar with: cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, certain cancers and type 2 diabetes.

I am from Atlantic Canada. It has the highest incidences of chronic disease in this country outside of our aboriginal communities. We have far too high an incidence of smoking, obesity, bad nutrition, stress, alcohol intake and all those risk factors that lead to high rates of chronic diseases. We simply have to, as a country, get serious about preventing these diseases.

I propose to give a flavour of the most recent data and trends with regard to the health of Canadians. The numbers are striking as are the costs and their implications. The total cost in Canada of illness, disability, and death from chronic diseases amounts to an estimated $80 billion annually. The cost in terms of quality of life is immeasurable. As the population ages, the incidence of chronic diseases will continue to increase unless major steps are taken.

A recent report estimated that in 1999, about $2.1 billion, or 2.5% of the total direct health care costs in Canada were attributable to physical inactivity. I have spoken in the House before about a study by the Heart and Stroke Foundation in Nova Scotia that backs it up in my own area. Some 21,000 lives were prematurely lost in 1995 because of physical inactivity.

Approximately 47% of adult Canadians aged 20 to 64 are either overweight or obese. It is reported that the prevalence of childhood overweight doubled and juvenile obesity tripled among children aged 7 to 13 between 1981 and 1996. In 1998 it was estimated that 63% of Canadians aged 12 or over were not active enough to benefit their health. More than half of children aged 5 to 17 were not active enough for optimal growth and development.

Studies tell us that over an estimated 1.7 million Canadians have diabetes. At present rates, this number is expected to grow to 3 million by the year 2010. Aboriginal peoples are particularly at risk. Prior to 1940, diabetes was virtually unknown in the aboriginal population, but in recent years rates have escalated to 15%. By 2015, a quarter of our aboriginal peoples will have diabetes. These disturbing numbers and the trends in both non-communicable and communicable diseases should concern all of us. A call has been sounded for a serious response from all levels of government.

The federal government has responded to this by establishing the Public Health Agency of Canada. The creation of the agency marks the beginning of a new approach to federal leadership and collaboration with provinces and territories on efforts to renew the public health system in Canada.

What is important to realize, and that I would like to highlight here, is that public health addresses both infectious and chronic diseases. Public health is about the promotion of good health, the prevention and control of disease, and the protection from existing and emerging health threats. We are not standing still on these issues.

The federal, provincial and territorial ministers of health announced in September 2002 their agreement to work together on a new initiative, the development of an integrated pan-Canadian healthy living strategy. The strategy will initially emphasize physical activity and healthy eating and their relationship to health and weight.

The aim of the healthy living strategy is to promote the health status and health outcomes of Canadians, reduce health disparities, and reduce the risk factors associated with type 2 diabetes, cancers and respiratory and cardiovascular diseases.

Federal, provincial and territorial health ministers directed officials to develop a strategy along with stakeholders. To this end, a thorough consultation process was undertaken with stakeholders from across Canada, including representatives from all levels of government, non-governmental and voluntary organizations, the private sector and aboriginal peoples.

At the September 2003 meeting of federal, provincial and territorial health ministers, a framework was endorsed, along with a series of recommended actions in the areas of partnerships, research, surveillance and best practices, community funding models, communications and health information, and further dialogue with aboriginal communities.

Federal officials, along with their provincial and territorial counterparts, are currently taking steps to develop and build on these ideas. For the average Canadian, what this means is that programs and initiatives will be put in place and tools provided for the public to make informed decisions and choices.

Having said this, let me say that the solution to preventing chronic disease is not simply a matter of individual responsibility or a matter for the health sector to address on its own. It is critically important that we all share responsibility for changing the conditions that influence health status and that have contributed to the rise of chronic disease.

We know that a number of key sectors strongly influence the environments that support healthy eating and physical activity. Education, transportation, recreation and sport, food and agriculture, environment, infrastructure, business and industry and all levels of government have a role to play in improving outcomes.

In response to direction from the FPT ministers of health, the Intersectoral Healthy Living Network has been established through a coordinating committee, bringing together representatives from governments, private and voluntary sectors, issue and population groups and others. The coordinating committee is an innovative and collaborative model currently developing global targets and indicators to guide the work of the network, establish an integrated research and surveillance agenda, and develop business plans for national public information and community relevant funding.

Complementing the work of the healthy living coordinating committee, the federal government has taken additional steps. A federal social marketing campaign is set for spring 2005, along with Sport Canada and INAC, which will focus on women and children.

In collaboration with other ministries of health and education, work is under way to establish the joint consortium on school health. An international symposium on school health was held in early November.

Combined physical activity and healthy eating guides are in the final stages of development. There is support for the physical activity benchmark program in collaboration with sport bodies and the provincial ministries.

The coordinating committee of the healthy living network has been asked to present a comprehensive pan-Canadian healthy living business plan to the federal provincial and territorial ministers of health in September 2005.

The Government of Canada has also been an active player on the international front. The World Health Organization has adopted a broad-ranging approach and has developed a global strategy on diet, physical activity and health, which was endorsed by the May 2004 World Health Assembly.

I would like to speak a little bit about the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, which have enabled non-profit organizations like the Heart and Stroke Foundation and other partners to do studies not only on biomedical and clinical research but on population health and health systems, so we can make a real attempt to keep people healthy rather than just treat them when they are sick.

I want to say something else. I do not believe we have done enough as a government or as a nation. I believe, and I have stated it in the House and in the health committee, that we need a complete, integrated national wellness strategy that recognizes the need for healthy living, rewards behaviours that lead to good health and provides an environment in our schools, in our communities and businesses that recognizes the need for healthy living.

I have a high school in my area, Dartmouth High School, that this year took the coke and the potato chips out of the school and replaced them with water and healthy snacks. The sad fact about it is that the school loses money, which is discretionary money for the school. That school did the right thing and it should not be penalized for making healthy choices for its students.

We need to recognize that much unhealthy living is the result of poverty. Government has a role to play in education, promotion, construction of required facilities, literacy programs, nutrition programs and affordable housing. They all play a role in the health of Canadians.

It is crucial that we continue to support this work at home as well as through our international relationships. The health and well-being of Canadians is the cornerstone of a healthy and productive society and economy. We cannot afford to be sidelined by the health threats that loom on the horizon.

Population health action, promotion, prevention and protection are urgently needed. I believe that this motion today is a step in that direction. It is one of the important steps we can take to safeguard the health of Canadians.

[Lui Temelkovski, Liberal, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when one looks at the member who just spoke, it is easily recognizable that they are obviously doing something different in the province he comes from. Are there any jurisdictions in his area that are doing an above average job in healthy living?

[Michael John Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, Nova Scotia is in fact the only province now, I believe, that has a ministry of health promotion. I applaud Nova Scotia for that. I think it needs a lot more resources. Under Scott Logan, a very capable administrator who promotes healthy living and wellness and is also very involved in sport at the elite level, Nova Scotia has taken some very good steps. I commend Premier Hamm for the work that has been done.

I also think Nova Scotia goes back a little further. My father was the Mayor of Dartmouth and instituted a healthy communities policy back in 1985. Ministers of health like Jim Smith have promoted the importance of activity and the importance of spending money on our health care system, such that we prevent people from getting sick and do not just wait until they get sick.

I am sure there are other places in the country that are taking steps in the right direction and that I might not be aware of. I must say I am proud that Nova Scotia has developed a ministry of health promotion and I am not sure that it would not be a bad model for Canada. We have a new public health agency which includes population health, and I think it will do a great job, but I think perhaps it would be even better if we had a national ministry of health promotion.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of the hon. member. I know that he has been very active with the Heart and Stroke Foundation. I found that out while speaking to him when we were riding over here on the little green bus to the debate this afternoon. I wonder if he could share with us some of his experiences in working for that organization, because I know that it has been doing excellent work on this issue and many other issues related to heart disease in Canada. Could he share with us some of his experience of that discussion within that organization?

[Michael John Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that my colleagues at the Heart and Stroke Foundation would be disappointed to find out that I came up here on the bus and did not walk from the Confederation Building, but that had more to do with the lack of time today than anything else--

[An hon. member]

And the rain.

[Michael John Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

--and the rain, let the record show, although it is much better here than it is in Nova Scotia.

The Heart and Stroke Foundation has been very active, but it is not just the Heart and Stroke Foundation that has been working. The Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian Diabetes Association, the Lung Association and Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada are all organizations that promote the health of Canadians.

I think that organizations like the Heart and Stroke Foundation and some of the other ones we have mentioned can take a very leading role in instituting some of these strategies. I know that the member who proposed the motion today would probably agree. I think that people like the folks who have been involved in the Heart and Stroke Foundation have done the work. We have done a great amount of work.

We know, for example, that we have made great strides in reducing the incidence of tobacco usage. It does means that people are living longer but not necessarily better, because once we keep people well so they do not get sick we also have to do something once they do get sick and spend more money on things like home care and palliative care.

I think organizations like the Heart and Stroke Foundation have done a great job in bringing this issue and smoking, obesity and inactivity to the national agenda. I congratulate them and I am glad that they are cited in this motion today.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I too want to thank the member for Dartmouth--Cole Harbour for his remarks and his insights. I found both the tone and the content of his remarks easy to agree with.

I would like to press him on one specific point. Some members of his government and some opposition members feel that it is probably adequate to introduce a labelling program to reduce the intake of trans fats generally. I am of the view that labelling is not adequate. I believe there are literacy problems associated with labelling, and frankly, labelling of scientific data may not be understood even by those people who do read the label.

Would the member agree that labelling alone probably is not adequate to seriously limit or comprehensively reduce the intake of trans fats generally?

[Michael John Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would support a motion that called for a ban on trans fats. That is not this motion, but I would have supported it had that been a motion before this House.

I have met with the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association about this issue because their members are affected by this. I do not take lightly standing up here and saying that I would support it, because it would have an impact on many of their businesses and unfortunately the smaller businesses as opposed to the larger chains, which have indicated in other jurisdictions that they can actually live with a ban on trans fats.

I would simply say to the member what I learned a long time ago in Nova Scotia politics: “Don't let perfect be the enemy of better”. I think this takes us to a better place.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

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.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Burnaby--Douglas for his very thoughtful remarks and for emphasizing in his speech one aspect of this whole debate over trans fats, which is the broader public policy debate around health care and the energy, resources and emphasis that we necessarily put toward the back end of health care, which is really managing illness once we are already sick, and the very low priority we seem to put at the front end of health care, which is trying to create a healthier community of people who are less likely to get sick.

Could the member perhaps expand on that broader public policy issue and on how this idea to ban trans fats is the very essence of public health issues, or perhaps public health care versus managing illness?

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

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.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Burnaby—Douglas both for his comments and also for permitting me to share his time this afternoon on this important debate.

I compliment organizations that are active in my riding, including the New Westminster Food Bank, the South Burnaby Neighbourhood House and the Union Gospel Mission. When we talk about food and food supplies, there are many organizations in communities across the country that do valuable and important work to ensure that those Canadians, who are too poor to balance their budget and pay for food at the end of the month, still can get through those months.

I look forward to a day when food banks will no longer be necessary in this country. With the incredible surplus that we have, it should be a source of shame to all of us that so many of our citizens across the country are relying on food banks and Gospel Missions to make ends meet.

I would like to pay tribute to the member for Winnipeg Centre for his incredible work on this issue. He has been persistent and diligent in pushing this issue for so many months and we are now at the point where this motion is actually before us in the House of Commons. That should be a source of great pride to him as well as a source of respect from all members of the House for his persistence in bringing this issue forward.

We have the issue of trans fats that is closely related to two other issues that are extremely important in our country. The first is the issue of health care and health care cutbacks. I come from a community which lost one of its major hospitals earlier this year, St. Mary's Hospital in New Westminster. That loss, as a result of Liberal health care cuts, is a source of great shame and frustration in the community. The hospital was vitally needed, yet it is now closed.

The motion before us deals, in an indirect way, with the issue of health care costs. We know very well that the presence of trans fats means increased health care costs and increased pressure on the system. The estimate that comes forward is one of about $100 million a year from the financial pressures on the health care system and the economy as a result of having trans fats in our system.

We also know that it is an issue of quality of life. The estimates range from 1,000 to 3,000 lives that could be saved annually in Canada if we were to deal adequately and effectively with the issue of trans fats. We know how quality of life issues in Canadian communities across the country have been affected in the last 10 to 20 years. We know the average Canadian family's debt load has grown by about one-third in the past 10 years. We know the average Canadian worker has suffered a loss in real wages of 60¢ an hour. We have seen health care cutbacks and the loss of hospitals in the major communities. We have seen post-secondary education cutbacks, which means more stress and more pressure on students, either to try to get the money to get through school, because of the outrageous costs of post-secondary education, or in so many cases, increased stress and pressure of trying to pay off debts that are in the $20,000 to $30,000 range.

Over the last 10 years of a Liberal government, we have seen a deterioration that is consistent and constant in the quality of life of Canadians. It is shameful. This measure is one that starts to address that quality of life issue in a very important way. It means we would have Canadians in a healthier state. It is a small part of what needs to be a very big agenda. That very big agenda is starting to have an impact on the quality of life of Canadians. It is extremely important, and that is why I am very happy to speak on the motion.

We know we are looking at potentially saving 1,000 to 3,000 lives a year. We know we are looking at savings in terms of our health care system, and that is important. We know we are contributing to advancing the quality of life of Canadians. These are all very important aspects.

We need to look at how other countries have treated the issue. The example that is most often cited is that of Denmark. We know Denmark started with the publication of a report by the Danish Nutritional Council in 1994 on the influence of trans fats. The report actually kick-started the whole process of the elimination of trans fats. One major step following the publication of that report in 1994 was achieved when an agreement was concluded with the Danish margarine industry to reduce the contents of such fats in margarine.

In 1994 the average daily intake of industrially produced trans fatty acids in Denmark was five grams per person. My colleague from Burnaby—Douglas just mentioned that the Canadian average is 10 grams per person, twice as much.

[An hon. member]

Highest in the world.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Highest in the world and we obviously need to address as quickly as possible. Since the elimination of trans fats and primarily as a result of the reduction in the trans fatty acid content of table margarines produced in Denmark, the current average daily intake is estimated at a bit over one gram per person. In other words, the Danish example to us is starting off at half the rate of grams per person consumption of trans fatty acids has since fallen to one-tenth, or a bit more, of what we now consume in Canada.

In the Danish example, the relevant executive order that was published, trans fats were limited to 2% of all oil or fats in industrially produced goods. In other words, the regulations in Denmark do not affect naturally occurring trans fats. This regulation came into effect on June 1, 2003. There was a six month period that allowed for 5% content of trans fatty acids.

In Denmark we have seen very clear results: first, from education and second, from the elimination of trans fats. What we see now in the Danish example is a per person consumption that is far below Canadian consumption of trans fatty acids. We know we have powerful allies on this issue. In fact, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada this very morning called for the elimination of trans fats. I will read just a brief excerpt of its press release. It states:

The Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada today expressed its support for the debate in the House of Commons on the important issue of effectively eliminating processed trans fats in the Canadian food supply.“The Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada has taken a lead on this issue. We’ve brought together consultations with academics, scientists, different members of the food processing and food service sectors and government to find the solutions to getting processed trans fats out of our food”, says Dr. Andreas Wielgosz, spokesperson for the Foundation. “The evidence linking trans fat consumption to increased risk of heart disease is clear, and we have to take action....

In February of this year, as part of its annual report card on the health of Canadians, the Foundation called on government and the food industry, and other stakeholders, to work together to significantly reduce the amount of trans fat and saturated fat in our food supply. Since that time, the Foundation has been an active advocate for the removal of trans fats, appearing on this issue before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health last May.

“The Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada is confident that a solution that is effective, affordable, and timely can be found with a committed effort from the government and other stakeholders”.

Why should we ban trans fat and not just warn consumers of its danger? The first reason is the quantity and diversity of products containing trans fat that are imported from other countries. It is too difficult to regulate. It is simply more efficient to ban them.

Why allow products that are so harmful to the health of Canadians on the market? Banning them would force manufacturers to seek other safer and healthier alternatives. The fact that some major companies such as Kraft, for example, have already managed to remove these fats from some of their products—Oreo cookies is the most often talked about example—proves that it is indeed possible to make this change.

This would save money in our health care system, which is very important. Canadians would also have a better quality of life. It is only logical that we adopt this motion being presented today.