Debates of Oct. 17th, 2013

Business of the House and its Committees

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her interesting comments. I would like to commend the work she has done in her riding. I know that she consults her constituents frequently and that she does a good job of representing their views. We would all benefit from having more members who do that kind of work, work we can all be proud of.

We all know that the government keeps saying it will do something, but it never actually does anything. We really have a lot of issues with this government. It is not exactly confidence-inspiring.

For example, the government has once again announced a plan to create jobs. All of the provinces have already rejected the plan, but the government keeps saying it intends to go ahead. How can it do that when this is an issue that falls under provincial jurisdiction? The provinces have to buy in. The government knows it needs them as partners, but it conveniently forgets that.

Sometimes the Conservatives are mistrustful and fearful. They do not understand. I do not know what the problem is. I am fully aware that the government talks and talks, but unfortunately, it does not have much to say.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I would just like to inform members that we have added nine minutes to government orders, so it will be extended until 5:39 p.m. In that context, the hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso will have the opportunity for his entire 20 minutes.

The hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Winnipeg North as we enter into this debate.

If I could be allowed a bit of latitude outside of the realm of the motion, I want to do something that is not that common in the House and pay a compliment to the government.

Upon assuming his new duties as the Minister of Justice, my colleague from Nova Scotia announced that the government would be undertaking a review of the federal action on the Fenwick MacIntosh issue, which many in the House are familiar with. It devastated a number of constituents in my riding. The Minister of Justice was very much aware of this case long before he took on this responsibility. One of the first times I had an opportunity to talk about the case was with the minister, who was in opposition at the time. This was the first file that he asked for upon coming to his new portfolio as justice minister. After a review of that file, he directed the department to go forward with the review of the federal responsibility in the case. I want to acknowledge him here on the floor of the House for that, and that is where I will stop flattering the government.

The essence of the motion is really about trying to split off aspects of the omnibus bill and unbundling some of the bill as it goes forward. The government announced in the throne speech yesterday that it was going to move forward to unbundle cable packages, and it is only fair that it come into the chamber with that same kind of spirit and unbundle some of the aspects of this omnibus bill.

We hoped that the Speech from the Throne yesterday would articulate a clear vision of what the government wants to accomplish over the next couple of years. We thought the vision would be obvious, but it would really only allow us the opportunity to maybe delete Vision television from our cable package. What we witnessed here yesterday with the Speech from the Throne was a really strange undertaking.

We in the Liberal Party are comfortable and supportive of many aspects identified in the motion. Our leader has gone on record on a number of occasions, speaking in favour of aspects of the motion: the oversight on the economy and the portion of the motion that identifies the oversight we want to see. We have taken initiatives already, and our leader has led the charge on that with full disclosure and proactive disclosure. We are comfortable with the aspects of the motion that identify that and we think they are worthy of going forward.

With respect to the initiative on the study of murdered or missing first nations women, we had hoped the throne speech would be the occasion to call for a full public enquiry. It is something with which we would be comfortable.

My former colleague from Winnipeg, Anita Neville, has long been an advocate and has on numerous occasions spoken passionately on the issue in this chamber. I was always inspired by how passionate she was when she would speak on the issue. Unfortunately, we have not seen any action on that particular issue from the government. That is an obvious disappointment, and this is one aspect of the motion that our leader and our entire party support.

Having listened to Shawn Atleo speak recently about this, I know it is an issue that grips not only first nations communities. All Canadians are aware of the horror of the issue. Therefore, I hope the government will go forward with a full inquiry. As the motion is written here, we are very supportive of that aspect.

With regard to the reconstitution of the committees, one of the most frustrating aspects since coming to the chamber and serving as an opposition member in a majority government is that I am only one member on a committee. What happens a lot of times is that a committee will embark on a particular project with the greatest of intentions, but we really do not get to a lot of the tough, core issues that are of most concern to Canadians in many of the 18 committees that grow from the House, because anything that could reflect in a somewhat negative light on the government is not allowed to go forward. Therefore, we are doing work that, yes, has purpose and is of benefit, but there are other things we could do that would be more beneficial for a greater number of Canadians and for Canadians who are really finding it difficult out there.

In my own human resources and skills development committee, certainly the issues around employment insurance and the changes that have been made would have been very worthwhile. However, we are not getting the opportunity. Then when we do undertake a study and witnesses come forward and offer testimony that is brought forward and reaffirmed by witness after witness, if it does not fit into the government's narrative we do not see it in the final report. I talk to people on other committees, and they say time after time that when they get to the essence of an issue that testimony is missing from the final report. We can put in a dissenting report, but if we want to move forward and do the best we can for Canadians, we need to come together and work around the political stripes and the ideologies. That is when this place functions at its best.

Therefore, in reconstituting the committees, unless there is that spirit of doing the best work we can to represent the greatest number of Canadians—those Canadians who are facing hardship, those who do not have a voice—then we should be compelled as lawmakers to do just that. There are many Canadians out there who are having a tough time of it. When we see the unemployment rate for young Canadians at twice the level of the national average, that has to be of concern. When we see the underemployment rate of young Canadians at almost 25%, that has to be of concern.

If I could, I will wrap up with this. The most recent statistics state that the number of Canadians working for minimum wage has doubled since the Prime Minister has taken over. We see more and more Canadians who have become a whole new category of the working poor. I think that is troubling.

I would hope that, once we get the committees reconstituted, we can look at some of these important issues. There are many aspects of this motion that we are very excited about and want to support.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I really think that my hon. colleague pointed out a lot of the concerns about yesterday. It is the lack of content. For all of that pomp and circumstance that went on yesterday, I would like to have an idea of what it cost the taxpayers. There was the prorogation and all of the other things and having a day when people were brought together to celebrate all of this. However, there was nothing in the throne speech that could not have been delivered under ministerial statements or one thing or another. This might be disturbing to some people over there, evidently, but I think cost is important. I wonder if my colleagues have any idea what kind of money was spent yesterday for all of that pomp and circumstance.

Then there is the issue of jobs, the issue that really matters. There was the spending of $41 million on advertising a Canada jobs grant that nobody seems to want to partner on. We spent $41 million and there are still no jobs.

I would like to hear some comments from my hon. colleague about what he thinks of that.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I looked at some of the comments posted by pundits on the throne speech yesterday. They said that it was timid, tepid and unambitious.

I remember in 1999, as we came into the new millennium, there was a lot of hype around the Y2K bug and about how it was going to devastate the country and, if we were not careful, the world was going to end. There was all this anticipation and anxiety around Y2K, and nothing happened.

That is sort of like the throne speech yesterday. There was a great deal of hoopla and anticipation, but it was pretty thin gruel. I agree wholeheartedly with my colleague that anything that was announced yesterday could have easily been addressed through a ministerial statement.

Maybe in a later question I can address the jobs grant.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleague on the other side can explain to this side of the House why the Liberals are so confused about prorogation.

Let me just go through it. The 37th Parliament, which was a majority with Chrétien and Martin, had three sessions and two prorogations. The 36th Parliament, which was a majority with Chrétien, had two sessions and one prorogation. The 35th Parliament, which was a majority with Chrétien, had two sessions and one prorogation.

Let us go to Trudeau. The 32nd Parliament, the Trudeau-Turner majority, had two sessions and one prorogation. The 30th Parliament, with a Trudeau majority, had four sessions and three prorogations.

I could go on and on. It is a process that has happened year after year in this House. Why is the Liberal Party claiming we did something that is not normal? Do the Liberals not understand Canada's history? Do they not understand how it works around here?

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I think for Canadians this was probably the least offensive of the Conservative prorogations.

However, I think Canadians would have been very comfortable with it had Conservatives come with a throne speech that had a little bit of direction.

In a throne speech after one of those prorogations of the government of former prime minister Chrétien, there was a surplus to deal with. One third of the surplus would go toward tax relief, one third would go to reinvestment in programs, and one third would go to paying down the debt.

I guess the good old days are long gone now. It will be a long time, at least three years anyway, before we see another day like that.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North was going to speak, but he is on a panel doing important opposition business, so I will take a few moments to talk about this omnibus bill, which would bring in previous legislation. Some is government legislation and some is private members' bills.

I think my colleague from Cape Breton—Canso, who spoke earlier, really hit on a serious point that we hoped it would be different in this Parliament. That is especially how the chamber works and how committees work.

As I have said in some of my responses to the throne speech and in talking with people in my riding today, I have been a member of this place for somewhere close to 20 years. It will be 20 years next week. I have seen about a dozen speeches from the throne, and I have never seen one with less vision, more misrepresentation of the historical facts, and such a small-minded strategy moving forward as we have seen in this one. I would hope that this chamber has bigger ideas than we have seen in the throne speech. Some of them can come from other bills coming forward. Some can come forward from committees, if we are allowed to operate the way we should.

I would like to talk a little bit about committees in the last session. What we saw was opposition members putting forward amendments that were voted down. Opposition members would put forward a motion to do a study. I do not know about all committees, but I attended four different committees, and in all of them, government members sitting on the committee asked the committee to go in camera, and the motion, surprisingly, was voted down. I guess I cannot say in this place who voted which way, but I think the House can detect that. The government members put the meeting in camera and there was a vote, and the motion was lost. That issue was not discussed, even though it was an issue Canadians were concerned about.

I would actually plead with the backbench members on the government side to change that in this Parliament. Allow Parliament to work the way it is supposed to, where we have pros and cons to ideas, where we debate the ideas, and where we take things that one does not agree with but that we allow to come forward for debate. That is how this place is supposed to work. I think a lot of the members opposite on the government side would like to see that happen.

The parliamentary secretary on the trade committee I was on last session challenged me, just like the member for Burlington did earlier. He challenged me and said that was the way the Liberals used to do it. No, it is not. The parliamentary secretary of trade in the last session was an opposition member when I happened to chair the fisheries committee. I went back and looked at the record. There were 32 motions put to committee. None of them were debated in camera, not one. Of those, 21 motions were from opposition members. They were critical of government policy, and the government of the day allowed the debate to occur. In fact, many of them passed. That is what this place is supposed to be. It is supposed to be a place of debate, ideas, and big vision.

The government opposite just wants to manage it a little bit. Look at the throne speech again. As my colleague said, it is going to unbundle some of the TV channels. Whether they are Vision TV or whatever they might be, the government is going to unbundle them.

I have to say something that one of my constituents said to me today. My constituent has an unemployed youth, 23 years old, who should be out in the workforce.

The government is not doing anything about the highest rate of unemployment among youth we have ever seen in this country, but by golly, as my constituent said, it would give us a little cheaper TV and a little cheaper cellphone so that he can stay home and sit on the couch, and we lose the potential of that youth out there working. The government should be working on the big issues, not trying to sell a new little consumer product for some cellphone company. That is not a vision.

I bring those points up because I am worried. I am worried that what we are going to get in the second session of this Parliament is more of the same, where the government limits debate. It votes down motions coming from citizens, motions that would build a better Canada. They at least should be discussed. If today's performance in question period is how we are going to continue, it was a continuation of the same. I quite honestly sat here pretty disgusted. I can see why Canadians are disgusted. We never had an answer to one question put to the government.

We know that the Prime Minister kind of chickened out and left the country. Obviously, he does not want to be here to answer questions on the Senate scandal, so he used the excuse of going over to sign the CETA deal. He could have signed that tomorrow or Friday. He could have stayed here and answered questions in the first session of this Parliament. He could have done that. He is going to talk about 80,000 jobs created by CETA, but Conservatives cannot prove it. Let them talk. Their record on trade is that they are the first government in 30 years that has had a deficit in trade on an annual basis. Let us look at the numbers. Since December 2011, the government that fails to answer questions every day in the House of Commons has had a deficit every month since December 2011.

In the throne speech, the Conservatives talked about bringing in prosperity through trade. They have been an absolute and utter failure every step of the way on trade thus far. My colleague, the trade critic, said earlier in question period that we know that they are going to sell out the dairy industry. We do not know what they are going to do in terms of adding extra costs for all Canadians on pharmaceutical products. We know that the Europeans are going to have two years of extra patent time for drugs. Is the deal good for Canadians? We do not know. As everything else the government does, it has done it in secret.

Conservatives now lock committees down in secret. They are negotiating the CETA agreement in secret, and we have a whole cabinet that fails to answer questions. They operate like the opposition is supposed to. They fail to answer questions, and in the process, they undermine democracy. This omnibus bill is certainly not going to do anything to--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The time for debate has expired. The member for Malpeque will have one minute when the debate resumes, if he wishes to continue.

It being 5:39 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, as listed on today's order paper.

Obesity

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should continue to: (a) recognize the long-term health risks and costs of obesity in Canada; (b) support, promote and fund organizations and individuals who are involved in the physical well-being of Canadians; and (c) make the reduction of obesity of Canadians a public health priority.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure this evening to rise to speak to my motion, Motion No. 425, regarding obesity, and the issue that is facing this country.

I want to first thank the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country for his work on the issue of health and fitness, trying to make Canada the fittest country in the world, and on initiating a national fitness day, which I believe next year will be June 7. He is doing great work, and I really appreciate his support.

In this House we are usually talking about policy or legislation. Tonight I am going to take the opportunity to talk about something that has personally affected me and why I brought this motion forward--it is not a bill, but a motion--to bring light to the issue and to have some discussion among our colleagues about what could be happening with our health care in terms of the issue of obesity and looking after one's health.

I thought I would start by telling members a personal story.

I have known four great-grandparents. I have two grandmothers still alive; they are both 96. I have known my grandfathers; they lived into their late eighties. I have a picture of myself, my daughter, my father, his mother, and her mother. It is a five-generation picture.

I have very good genes for long life. We have no heart disease in the family. One grandmother, who is 96, did survive cancer at age 40, a long time ago. Other than that, we have been very lucky with our health.

A year and a half ago, I was having some difficulty, so I went to my doctor. I thought there was something wrong with my prostate; however, I found out that I had diabetes, which was a bit of a shock to me. I thought that I was virtually indestructible because of my genes.

However, my lifestyle included drinking five or six Coca-Colas a day, eating improperly, and not keeping proper hours, in the sense that these are long days. It is a really interesting career one chooses in federal politics, and travelling back and forth, not eating breakfast, and just not doing things correctly, I gained weight here, as I know some of us all have. I was about 225 pounds at one point. I hid it well with big suits.

Things changed for me. I went to the doctor; I was having some difficulty. Lo and behold, they claimed that I had diabetes. Of course, my first reaction was to say, “No way. That is not possible. How is that possible when I have no diabetes in my family, when I have no heart disease?” My blood pressure was excellent. It still is excellent. However, my sugar levels were through the roof.

The doctor indicated that if I continued, I had a chance of my pancreas getting worse. I would have to take insulin, and so on and so forth. The doctor diagnosed me with type 2 diabetes—not type 1, of course, which is juvenile diabetes—and put me on a pill, Metformin, which is the standard thing they start a diabetes patient on. I told the doctor I did not want to take pharmaceuticals if I did not have to and asked if there was a way for me to do something about it.

He indicated that it was possible—not likely, but possible—that if I lost weight and exercised regularly, I might be able to get off Metformin.

I took his advice. I started exercising again. I set a goal for myself to run a marathon in every province; I have run six. I just ran one this past weekend, in Victoria, British Columbia. I do not advise everyone that they have to run marathons to get healthy, but I have taken on that task. I eat better, I have lost weight, and I am not on Metformin anymore. It has been about a year.

What woke me up to this issue is that I really did not pay attention. I have two daughters who are athletes. One is on a sports scholarship at a university in the United States. The other plays competitive volleyball. They are both in very good shape. Obesity and diabetes were never an issue around our house. All of a sudden there was something there.

I started thinking that if it could happen to me, what about everybody else? I started looking around and talking to different individuals and organizations about what is happening. In that time frame, even the United States had announced that obesity was actually a disease and that if it did not get on top of it, it would become a real health care issue for them.

Based on the motion, I have broken it down into three pieces. This is just to get people to think about where we are going from a health perspective.

The first part of the motion is to recognize the long-term health risks and costs of obesity. I can put a lot of statistics out there and talk about the costs of obesity and the like. However, it is just common sense. If people are not healthy, they will be using the system. There is no magic to it or statistician's formula. I am always a little nervous about statisticians. If I give my friend a dollar today and a dollar tomorrow, there is a 100% increase yet it is still only a dollar, so one has to be careful with that.

The reality is that if we look around at what we are eating and what we are doing in terms of being healthy, there will be a long-term cost to our health care system. Members may not like the way I put this but at the federal level health care is writing cheques to the provinces that deliver the actual health care. That is a lot of pressure, not necessarily on the federal system but on the provincial system. In general, we need to worry about the costs with respect to health care.

We also need to worry about the health risks. It is claimed, and I hope it is not true, that we might be the last generation with the ability to outlive our children. Imagine a generation that is unable to outlive its children. That is just not right and not what I think should happen. However, if we do not do something in terms of looking after our health, that is an actual and real possibility. I do not think that is something we want.

The second part of the motion is about supporting the promotion of health and healthy living, not just financially but in other ways. There are a number of great organizations. Some are not for profit and others are for profit. I have no issue with that. I just want to highlight a couple.

There are organizations that are oriented toward health issues. For me, the Diabetes Association has been fantastic. It provided me with a lot of information about what diabetes was, what I could do about it and the two different types. There is the Heart and Stroke Foundation and the lung associations. There are a number of organizations that do great work.

My motion asks that all levels of government, federal, provincial and municipal, continue to support those organizations in their efforts. That does not necessarily mean we have to write them a cheque. Rather, it means going to their events and supporting their efforts in the communities. If one has a neighbour or friend who is running in a marathon, which I do, in support of diabetes, support that individual. Those groups are doing great work in their areas of expertise and are important in terms of not only helping those with the disease or health issue they are dealing with but at promoting awareness and education and they need to do that.

Another organization, which I am very excited about and which the Government of Canada has supported, is ParticipACTION. I am a keen supporter of organizations that get people moving and healthy. It does not have to be running. It can be karate. It can be whatever activity one wants to do. I want to encourage people to take advantage of what these organizations do. We do not have to be experts at whatever we are doing.

I ran my marathon this weekend in four hours and 42 minutes. The gentleman sitting beside me in the plane coming back ran it in two hours and 19 minutes. I was exactly halfway when he was finished. We have to just get out there and get involved. If members could, I want them to encourage neighbours, friends and communities. Whatever is happening in a community, if members of Parliament could, they should help support those organizations.

There are for-profit organizations that are helpful, and I'll use the Weight Watchers organization as an example. I think it is an excellent organization. I have not personally used it. I lost my 25 or 30 pounds basically by eating less and not drinking Coke, which I miss. However, people do need help and there are organizations that will help and they are doing a great job.

Another organization in my community that has recognized this issue is Big Brothers Big Sisters. It has a program for the clients they serve, the young people, because youth is a big issue. If we do not convince youth to take care of themselves both by eating healthily and keeping physically fit, there will be a problem. Big Brothers Big Sisters has a program for those young people to make sure they understand what good health is, what good fitness is and what good eating is. I applaud its efforts.

As I mentioned before, one of my daughters goes to school in Indiana and she is in an education program. It was interesting to hear this past week that in one of the courses she takes, which talks about introducing healthy eating and activity into the classroom, it used Canada as an example of how it is done well. I am very supportive of our education system, and I think it does a good job, but we need to continue to support it to make sure physical activity does not leave the curriculum of our Canadian school children, particularly those at a young age, and ensure that other things do not ease it out, being more of a priority. Health is a priority and we need to teach young folks that piece.

The last piece I have to talk about is the public health priority. I think it is fair to say that the public health policy here at the federal level has been somewhat lacking in the obesity and fitness area over the last number of years. It just has not made it to the top as a priority piece. I am hopeful that will change under our government and with the support of all members.

If members look at the throne speech from yesterday, under safeguarding families and communities, they will see that the government will also work with provinces, territories and not-for-profit sectors to encourage young Canadians to be more physically active. I did not know that would be in the speech. I have had this motion in front of the House for a while, because it kept getting bumped for other private member's motions that I felt were of higher priority in terms of timing. So this was a very pleasant surprise for me, and as a member of Parliament, I am going to use it to encourage my government to be proactive in making sure we meet the mandate we have put in this throne speech over the next number of years.

I thank members for their attention and for their attention to their own health and their family's health. I would be happy to answer any questions.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I read the motion. I understand the intent behind it, but I do not see how this constitutes any real action to address obesity. I am a nurse and I know that when a patient is given a treatment plan, the objectives have to be concrete, specific, measurable and realistic. We have to be able to assess them. The motion talks about recognizing the long-term risks and costs. We all recognize that. All health care professionals, all Canadians already know the costs. I do not see how we could recognize them any more. The motion talks of supporting, promoting and funding organizations and individuals involved in Canadians' well-being, but there is no specific amount, demand or funding allocated. We have absolutely no idea how the government will go about it. They give a beautiful line, but there is no specific proposal to back it up.

The motion talks about making the reduction of obesity of Canadians a public health priority. I am sorry, but this has been a top priority for health care professionals for quite some time already. Everyone knows that and we have been taking action for quite some time. I do not think the member is adding anything new here. We are already working on it.

I would like the member to explain to me what concrete changes will occur as a result of this motion and what will change in the government's plans. Otherwise, it is nothing but a beautiful line with nothing concrete behind it.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. I would agree that the motion is not intended to give specifics. That is what motions, in my view, in the House of Commons are for, which is to generate discussion about particular policies or topics.

There is an area where I disagree with the member. I agree that other jurisdictions, industries and health care providers have identified obesity as an issue, but I am not convinced that the Public Health Agency of Canada has made it a priority. The purpose of my motion is to say that we are thinking about this in the House of Commons and we would like to see some action. I am very happy that in the Speech from the Throne there is actually a line regarding obesity and the security of families and children in the future. It is moving up on the ladder of priorities and I am very supportive of our government moving forward with it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we need to recognize that we have to take a holisitic approach in dealing with this issue. In talking about long-term policy best interest, school divisions, municipalities and provincial governments all need to be part of a process. I will give a specific example of a high school initiative where students are recognizing the importance of eating healthier. There is a movement to get rid of the gravy and fries and have more salads put into cafeterias. There are many different ideas.

To what degree does the member believe the federal government, being a national government, has a leadership role in bringing stakeholders together and actually having a proactive Minister of Health who shows she is genuinely concerned about the issue and starts talking about it not just inside but outside the House of Commons with the different stakeholders?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the federal government, through the Public Health Agency, should be taking a leadership role in working with others at all levels, whether it is at the municipal or provincial levels, with education organizations and the other organizations I discussed that may be oriented to certain health issues. It is a holisitic approach. We cannot do one thing and solve all of the problems. A number of things have to be done. I would agree with that as I have experienced it myself.

I am hoping that through the throne speech and our discussions on this motion that it will take a higher role in terms of a priority for the Public Health Agency and the minister herself.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Motion No. 425 on preventing obesity.

First, I want to assure my Conservative colleague that the NDP will support this motion, which states:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should continue to: (a) recognize the long-term health risks and costs of obesity in Canada; (b) support, promote and fund organizations and individuals who are involved in the physical well-being of Canadians; and (c) make the reduction of obesity of Canadians a public health priority.

No one is against virtue. The NDP cares about the health of all Canadians. That is why we focus a lot on the social determinants of health at the Standing Committee on Health.

We are always disappointed when the Conservative members refuse to allow the Standing Committee on Health to examine the social determinants of health. However, that is not what I want to talk about today.

Obesity rates have reached alarming levels in Canada. I am not sure if members are aware, but in the past 30 years, the obesity rate has nearly doubled. The Public Health Agency of Canada has provided the following statistics: in 2011, 25% to 35% of Canadian adults and nearly 10% of Canadian children were obese. That is very sad and we must take this seriously, since we are jeopardizing the lives and the health of young and not-so-young Canadians.

What the NDP finds even more despicable is that opposition members—particularly New Democrats—have introduced a number of meaningful bills to combat obesity in Canada, to improve health and to enhance the lives of Canadians, but the government systematically shut them down.

That is disgraceful. We are, however, pleased to see that the government appears to be taking this seriously. This motion's weakness is that it does not contain anything concrete. I will explain our issues with this motion a little later.

The NDP has repeatedly asked that levels of trans fats and sodium in food be regulated to improve Canadians' diets and fight obesity.

In 2004, my colleague and good friend, the member for Winnipeg Centre, moved a private member's motion to regulate trans fats in food. While the motion was adopted unanimously, the federal government, be it Liberal or Conservative, has not proposed any measures since then, which we find utterly deplorable.

That same member also introduced Bill C-303, which aims to amend the Food and Drugs Act to limit trans fats in food to a maximum of 2 g per 100 g. That clearly shows that the NDP is making meaningful proposals to improve the health of Canadians.

In 2011, the member for Vancouver East, who is also the official opposition's health critic, introduced Bill C-460, which, if passed—and I hope that the Conservatives will walk the talk and support this worthwhile bill—will implement the Sodium Reduction Strategy for Canada, along with other specific measures to improve the health of Canadians.

That same member regularly questioned the health minister about processed food regulations in Canada. She asked why the minister cancelled the plan to reduce levels of trans fats in food and why she ignored those who were calling for limits on sodium levels in food.

I encourage the motion's sponsor to raise his concerns with the Minister of Health. This new minister took over the reins this summer. We hope that she will collaborate more than the previous health minister did.

It is clear that the NDP promotes healthy living and that it is truly a priority for this party.

Another NDP colleague, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, introduced Bill C-252, which would allow Canadians to deduct from their taxable income all fees paid to participate in a physical activity or amateur sport. That is nothing to scoff at.

In 2005, barely 28% of Canadians over the age of 15 were involved in a sport. This figure comes from Statistics Canada. The rate of participation in a sports activity is especially low among low-income youth and adults. That is why it is important to help families, whether they are members of the middle class or less well off, to be physically active and to improve their health. Ultimately, they will not be a burden to society in terms of health care costs.

What we find to be unfortunate is that barely 7% of Canadians get 60 minutes of physical activity a day according to the 2012 Canada Report Card on Physical Activity for Children and Youth.

The government must do more to ensure that our young people are active and expend energy. Our youth must also eat properly. I was hoping that this motion would have more teeth. I was convinced that because this is a Conservative motion, they would have put their heads together to find a bill that all Conservative members would approve.

As I pointed out a little earlier, the NDP is walking the talk whereas the Conservatives are dragging their feet and are even slashing health transfers to the provinces by $31 billion. I will be quite honest with them. The provincial and territorial governments will not have any more money to invest in prevention with this $31 billion cut in health transfers. I find that absurd.

Coming back to my Conservative colleague's motion, in recent decades the prevalence of obesity has drastically increased in Canada. In addition to compromising the health of millions of Canadians, obesity costs Canadians between $4.6 billion and $7.1 billion every year. The Conservatives have not established any services to deal with this growing health problem.

What is more, some Canadian health experts estimate that 40,000 obesity-related deaths could be avoided each year if a national obesity prevention strategy were in place to support prevention programs.

The federal government needs to invest more in obesity awareness and prevention services and programs. The NDP has proposed concrete measures to improve the nutritional value of food and promote an active lifestyle. Those are two key factors in preventing obesity.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives, apart from the motion's sponsor, do not care very much about the health of Canadians. Whether it is a question of healthy food choices, promoting an active lifestyle or improving access to timely care, the Conservatives are not living up to the public's expectations.

By cutting funding to programs that facilitate access to adequate housing, a decent income, social inclusion and education, they have exacerbated the risk factors for obesity.

The Conservatives have made unilateral decisions about health that undermine the all-party approach needed to curtail a problem as complex as obesity. That is harming the people who need support to fight the disease and remain healthy.

What we want is clear. Canada's obesity rate is skyrocketing, putting the health of a growing number of Canadians in jeopardy. In recent years, the Conservatives have not stepped up to improve Canadians' health and to provide meaningful, sustained funding for prevention strategies. Instead of moving a motion that only touches on the issue of obesity, why does the government not create a national strategy to actively target this problem that affects the lives of millions of Canadians?

The NDP has always believed in the importance of taking meaningful action to address the health issues affecting Canadians. Although we support Motion No. 425, we believe that it does not do enough to lower the obesity rate in this country, which I think is unfortunate.

NDP members have worked tirelessly to propose meaningful measures to curb obesity. For example, we have suggested limiting the amounts of trans fat and sodium in foods to improve Canadians' diets.

The NDP has been critical of the government's reluctance to regulate processed foods. We also promote an active lifestyle and highlight the importance of prevention.

My speech is nearly done. I think it is truly unfortunate that the government is not doing more overall to promote prevention and to improve Canadians' health. We will support my Conservative colleague's motion. However, when I read the following in the motion: “That, in the opinion of the House, the government should continue to...,” I can see that at the end of the day, everything will remain the same.

We are calling on the government to do more and to stop letting the food industry regulate itself. That does not work. We are also calling on the government to create tax credits for physical activity for the least fortunate members of our society. They need it. I hope that the government will take this into consideration.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, I am pleased to speak to this motion from the member for Burlington. I welcome and congratulate the member on the motion, or at least most of it. There is one part I want to talk about for a moment. Also, I congratulate him. We all listened to his remarks earlier. I congratulate him on his personal journey getting off the pill, so to speak.

The motion states, “That,...the government should continue to”. I would agree with my colleague who just spoke that it is really a misrepresentation of the facts to say that “the government...continue to”. We see that in a lot of the motions coming forward to committees. The government's record on this issue is pretty dire, so I would say that the government should at least start. However, the points are valid. The motion states:

...(a) recognize the long-term health risks and costs of obesity in Canada; (b) support, promote and fund organizations and individuals who are involved in the physical well-being of Canadians; and (c) make the reduction of obesity of Canadians a public health priority.

It is certainly absolutely essential for that to happen.

It is kind of significant that today is called International Day for the Eradication of Poverty, and some would ask why I would say it is important to mention International Day for the Eradication of Poverty in my remarks on a bill that is trying to make the reduction of obesity a public health priority. It is extremely important, because it is a known fact that people who are in poverty tend to buy unhealthy foods. They buy them because they are cheap. They are not as nutritious. There is certainly a connection between poverty and the food choices families make that actually lead to obesity, either at a young age or down the road.

We know that on the issue of poverty, the government is actually increasing poverty in Canada, if the truth be known. We see it in my region with the changes the Conservatives made to employment insurance and so on. However, I would digress if I got into that particular issue. However, I want to make the point that there is a serious connection between poverty and the choice of unhealthy foods that lead to obesity. We should recognize that, and the government should recognize it as well.

This motion is calling on the federal government to make the issue of obesity a public health priority, which we have always supported as a party, as a preventive public health measure. We will support this motion in the hope that the government will take this seriously and move forward on issues such as a sodium reduction plan, which my colleague from Vancouver Centre has talked about many times, and that it will also impose regulations on trans fats and energy drinks, all of which, to date, the Conservatives have refused to act on. They are important issues in terms of a health strategy on foods and obesity.

We all know that obesity is a risk factor for many chronic illnesses, particularly heart disease and diabetes. The member for Burlington spoke substantially about diabetes.

Although a variety of factors contribute to obesity, physical activity and dietary practices help prevent it. I think that is the major thrust of the member's bill and it is certainly a good idea.

We need to look at some of the facts. Obesity rates in Canada have been rising steadily over the last two decades. The rate is now at 25.3%. The north and maritime provinces have the highest obesity rates. British Columbia has the lowest. Children aged 2 to 17 have an obesity rate of 26%, up from 15% in 1979. Youth aged 12 to 17 have a higher rate of 29%. First nations children and youth on and off reserve have a combined obesity rate of 41%.

Those are serious numbers. What I am trying to do is make the point that the member for Burlington's bill is necessary. It is absolutely necessary that the government take this motion very seriously.

Obesity has economic costs, including lost productivity and increased costs to our health care system. In our analysis, Canada has an estimated $15 billion sports, physical activity and recreational infrastructure gap which has prevented the repair or replacement of needed facilities for youth and has contributed to low levels of physical activities among Canadian youth.

I will admit that I am not great at going to the gym or doing physical exercise, but I do walk from the justice building to here which gives me some exercise, and I get some on the farm. I look at my son. When he went through the school system, going to the gym and physical exercise was the thing to do in that time frame, whereas I see going to the gym as a waste of time in mind, which is wrong. However, if my son did not go the gym, it would not be a productive day for him.

That is what we have to instill in young people, that kind of attitude where physical activity is part of their daily life. In that way, it will prevent more costs to our health care system.

Estimates show that obesity results in economic costs of approximately $7.1 billion annually. That is according to the research we have done. That is lost productivity and further costs to our health care system.

The government should look at this proposal as an investment, not a cost. If we can bring that $7.1 billion annual cost as a result of obesity down, then that is money well spent. It could be spent in other ways.

I believe the member for Burlington is sincere when he makes the point about the throne speech, this piece of fiction that was read yesterday, about how the government intends to work with the provinces and territories. We will actually believe it when we see it. The federal government has failed to work with the provinces and territories on anything yet, especially on health care issues.

We would hope that with a backbench Conservative member putting forward this motion, the government will take the issue seriously, will move on the obesity question, will support physical exercise and will do something about the other health issues and poverty that I mentioned previously in my remarks.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the marathon-running member for Burlington, has vigorously moved a motion today that goes deep and far in helping Canadians find a way to go from where we are today to becoming the fittest nation on earth. In my remarks I will reinforce what he has told us about the crisis in which we find ourselves today as a nation in terms of the health consequences of the obesity epidemic, and then touch on the economic consequences. Most importantly, I address three audiences today who can unite to reverse the current trend and make us what we can and should be: the fittest nation on earth. Those audiences are fellow parliamentarians, mayors and councillors of our local governments, and most importantly the 35 million people of Canada.

The rates of obesity continue to be high. The most recent Statistics Canada data show that 67% of Canadian men and 54% of Canadian women, ages 18 to 79, are either overweight or obese. Even more concerning is that nearly one in three Canadian youth between the ages of 5 and 17 fall into these categories. These frightening statistics ought to make us all wake up. Put simply, the root causes of obesity are issues that we Canadians must acknowledge, challenge and defeat. We are not talking about fatness; we are talking about fitness. This is not about cosmetic and subjective commentary about how fashionable we Canadians look. This is about when BMI, body mass index, issues lead to chronic diseases.

Obesity is associated with the increased risk of many chronic diseases, including diabetes and cardiovascular problems. Other related problems are sleep apnea, hypertension, osteoarthritis and certain types of cancers, and these diseases are killers. Every year in Canada 67% of all deaths are caused by four major chronic diseases related sometimes to obesity: cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular problems and chronic respiratory diseases. Afflicted by these things, children are increasingly hit by chronic health problems that used to be confined to adults. Our current youth are likely to be the first generation in history to die of natural causes at an age younger than the age at which their parents died.

The obesity epidemic raised by the member for Burlington today is not just a health peril. It is an economic peril, a major factor in balancing our national budget, in being competitive economically and in being a prosperous nation. We Canadians know instinctively that poor health saps our creativity and productivity. However, we would agree that the numbers deliver a staggering message. Canada's public health agency has put a $7 billion annual price tag on health care for cardiovascular problems and diabetes arising from obesity. Canadians are concerned about these spiralling health costs, and we must respond. Indirect costs relating to lack of productivity in the workplace could be even larger.

In a comprehensive approach to making Canada the fittest nation on earth, we should not ignore the harmful role of illegal drugs, prescription drugs that are misused and the misuse of legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco. Canadians were therefore delighted yesterday to hear the Governor General express support in the throne speech for taking significant steps against the misuse of prescription drugs. In conjunction with Michel Perron of the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, the Canadian association of police chiefs and the B.C. association of police chiefs, I have pressed for a national prescription drug drop-off day. Our ministers of public safety and health responded and last year, on May 11, we had our first ever such day to highlight the misuse of prescription drugs. Over three tonnes of unused prescription drugs were collected.

I take great pride in the Orchard Recovery Center from my riding, which spearheaded recovery day in B.C., a day on which brave people publicly highlight their attempts to overcome substance abuse. On its second anniversary, September 8, recovery day had already spread to 18 cities in Canada. I encourage all Canadians to take note and support those in recovery.

We have reached a pivotal moment in our history. In large numbers, we Canadians have lost the way in taking care of ourselves. We must each take that responsibility seriously and encourage others to do the same. While a key to a fit nation starts with personal responsibility, government does have a big role to play and our government has taken strong steps to make a difference.

For example, it was our Conservative government that introduced the children's fitness tax credit, making it easier and more affordable for children to go out and stay active. We built on this success further in budget 2013 through our elimination of tariffs on sports and athletic equipment. Yesterday's throne speech signalled a continuing commitment to turn the tide of obesity in our nation. Standing beside the Minister of Health yesterday, I witnessed first-hand her commitment as she applauded the government's commitment to continue to “work with the provinces and territories and with the private and not-for-profit sectors to encourage young Canadians to be more physically active”.

I applaud the health minister's energetic commitment, but she cannot do it alone. It is my dream that each member of Parliament and senator comes to Parliament Hill believing that the promotion of health and fitness is an integral part of our role. As public figures, we may not be athletic and we may not even be fit, but we can demonstrate our commitment to act as role models to improve our own levels of fitness and to encourage our constituents to do the same.

That is why parliamentarians regularly receive a joint invitation from the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, the member for Etobicoke North and me, three members of different parties who together invite parliamentarians to join together to put our stickers in the window for fitness. Come join us for a walk or run each Wednesday at 12:15 at the Centennial Flame or a swim on Thursdays at 6:45 a.m. at the Chateau Laurier. We are privileged that Pierre Lafontaine, CEO of Canadian Interuniversity Sport, and Phil Marsh, senior manager of the Running Room, come out regularly to rally us, totally committed to the concept of making Canada the fittest nation on earth.

In addition to these weekly events, I encourage parliamentarians to help me take to new heights of participation some events that I have introduced, to make a statement to the nation. The third annual Bike Day on the Hill will be May 12 and the third annual National Life Jacket and Swim Day will take place on May 25, events produced with the help of Canadian Tire Jumpstart foundation, Canadian Red Cross, Cycling Canada, the Ottawa Bicycle Club and others.

Parliamentarians, we need to start in our own House first, literally: the House of Commons and the Senate. Each of us is a mini-minister of health, there to support the minister herself. In this Olympic year and following the legacy of 2010, I invite every member to join me and our colleagues on Wednesdays and Thursdays to help make Canada the fittest nation on earth.

Our Conservative government has developed a pattern of investing in community projects like sports arenas and fitness centres to encourage healthy living and active lifestyles, including many in the riding I represent. I now ask the mayors and town councillors across the nation how we can, as parliamentarians, work with them to leverage their marvellous community facilities to work together to make Canada the fittest nation on earth.

It is local governments that own and maintain many of the key infrastructures. It is local governments that create programs to involve people in their communities to participate together to become more physically active. We chose the first Saturday in June to be National Health and Fitness Day, when many local governments are already committed to opening their summer facilities for the first time.

I invite all of my colleagues, in both houses, to join with Canadians and approach mayors and councillors across Canada to take part in this growing movement. Ask the communities to mark the day in some way, be it reduced-cost admission to a recreation centre, two-for-one swim time, a demonstration of nutritional cooking or a walk or bike ride for seniors. There is no need for NHFD to be a cost centre. It can be a marketing campaign that produces revenue for each participating municipality.

His Excellency the Governor General participated in National Health and Fitness Day, offering kick-off remarks for Ottawa events and demonstrating considerable prowess on his bicycle.

I have tabled a private member's bill, Bill C-443, to formalize National Health and Fitness Day. I am please to say it has support from 20 members of all parties.

As I bring my remarks to a close, I ask all of our fellow countrymen and countrywomen what we can do to respond to the obesity epidemic. First, we must recognize the key aspect played by the root causes of obesity and that is the lack of participation in healthy physical activity. Second, we need to join together to encourage each other, to encourage our mayors and councillors. Why not set that lofty goal to go on to become the fittest nation on earth?

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honour to embark on this delayed return to the House in keeping with the guiding principles that have directed my interventions since I first entered federal politics.

There is an underlying theme to my interventions in the House. I make a point of lifting the veil of secrecy that shrouds the lifestyle and realities of Canada's northern communities. Since I myself hail from a community north of the 52nd parallel, I am in a position to make known a host of variables and realities that are too often hidden from public view.

Given all that, in the context of this motion on preventing obesity, I will shed light on many issues related to the overabundance of processed foods in northern regions.

It takes me 14 hours to get home from Ottawa. Powerful lobby groups can afford to sell products at a loss in communities. The distance means that extra costs are associated with transportation, hence the loss. I am thinking of pop and chips, which are abundant in communities that are otherwise quite poor both economically and nutritionally.

In other words, people in many of these communities, such as Pakuashipi and Saint-Augustin, have no choice but to buy their food at convenience stores. There are aboriginal communities, but the same is true for the coasters and non-aboriginals who live in these communities. Often the convenience store is the only store in the community.

Most of us have been in convenience stores, and we have probably noticed that processed foods are usually displayed at children's eye level. Three-year-olds who go to convenience stores or bigger stores with their parents get an eyeful of chips, pop and chocolate bars. That is marketing. That is all business. Future consumers are being trained early. Companies make sure that children develop addictions to sugar and processed foods.

The motion before us focuses on the social costs of Canada's alarming obesity rate. One of my colleagues mentioned that health care costs amount to $7 billion per year. Obesity costs us billions of dollars—$7 billion according to my colleague.

Obesity increases the risk of developing a number of chronic diseases, including cardiovascular, liver and gall bladder disease. Liver and gall bladder disease are very prevalent among northerners.

I will speak to this point right away. Many children in these communities are confronted by this reality at a very young age. The number of people who die as a result of cirrhosis of the liver, which is a rather violent and slow death, is ongoing, visible and part of daily life. Cirrhosis of the liver is often related to the over-consumption of alcoholic products. I spoke about the processed foods lobby, but the alcoholic beverage lobby is very present in these communities. In short, when we talk about the cost of obesity, we must not overlook this aspect.

For members' information, when a person dies of cirrhosis of the liver, the mattress is collected along with the body. Children are exposed to adversity at a very young age and it becomes routine. I do not want to use the word “mundane”, but that is what it boils down to. It is part of the reality of these remote communities, which are in a vacuum.

Obesity can result in cardiovascular, liver and gall bladder diseases, strokes, high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, certain cancers—such as endometrial, breast and colon cancer—sleep apnea and respiratory difficulties.

Diabetes is another very worrisome problem in these communities. It results in a gradual and slow death. I often talk about children because they are confronted by this reality. For example, they may have a family member who has a number of amputations, starting first with a leg. We know once amputation is required, death soon follows. In fact, I have not seen many cases where a person with diabetes undergoes an amputation and then lives for many years afterwards.

It is a matter of months after the amputation. In short, this is related to products high in sodium, sugar and carbohydrates, as well as processed foods.

When I was talking about overabundance, these lobbies and the processed food industry, the junk food industry, all make sure they are everywhere in remote communities. In fact, this is clearly reflected in the garbage and empty chip bags in these communities.

Children enjoy considerable freedom in some communities. When they have a few dollars, their first impulse is obviously to get a bag of chips. We can easily calculate the sodium and calories involved. Just as an alcoholic can simply drink to live and give up solid food, it is also possible to live almost exclusively on chips and soft drinks and have an almost balanced diet. This is not quite the case, but some children with little or no supervision can turn to a diet based almost exclusively on fast food.

When I talk about fast food, I am also including TV dinners, which can be put in the microwave for 3.3 minutes and are very high in sodium and trans fats.

Given these facts, we can only welcome any initiative aiming to educate Canadians on this issue, while at the same time encouraging a dialogue to curb obesity in our country.

For the members' information, I will provide the ugly statistics. In Canada, obesity rates are particularly high among aboriginal populations. It is estimated that 26.4% of aboriginal youth and 36% of aboriginal adults living on reserve are obese. These figures are applicable to all the people in Canada's far north, or at least north of the 50th parallel. As I mentioned earlier, for example among coasters, the convenience store is often the only place to buy food for the family. However, what they find is an overabundance of chips and soft drinks.

This is a shame. When I was going door to door during the summer, my experience and my life in remote communities taught me that the two-litre Pepsi or two-litre bottle of pop, not to name any companies, is still on every table. The choice is very simple. A community at the 52nd parallel has to choose between paying sometimes $6 for a two-litre carton of milk—it must be much more expensive at the 55th—or 99 cents for a two-litre bottle of pop in July. That is a problem.

When the UN rapporteur, Mr. De Schutter, came here to Ottawa last year, I made sure I gave him a certain photograph. For any of my colleagues who wish to see it, I still have it on my phone. The photograph shows that in July, in Uashat, a community that is very far away, two litres of pop cost 99¢. Other products, like two litres of Perrier, are a lot more expensive. So the choice is pretty simple.

This brings about certain questions and some very legitimate concerns regarding the pervasive nature and real power of those lobby groups. This government also needs to examine its conscience. Clearly, some of these powerful lobby groups have an attentive ear, and it is appalling that the Canadian government is willing to put economic interests first rather than improve the health and well-being of all Canadians, especially considering the social costs associated with poor nutrition.

Implementing the Conservative corporatist agenda and the government's gradual withdrawal of programs promoting access to adequate housing, social inclusion and education have exacerbated the risk factors that lead to obesity.

Now, there is a lack of political will to regulate industrial practices. I am talking about industrial practices in the broad sense, but it is more obvious in the case of prepared foods. The government has a laissez-faire attitude. The entire industry pretty much has free will, but the costs associated with our health care system having to take care of people with serious health problems related to poor nutrition must be reassessed and that requires a collective awareness.

I submit this respectfully.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:39 p.m.)