Debates of Feb. 1st, 2013

Fair Rail Freight Service Act

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the hon. gentleman's confidence. I have had the pleasure of consulting with many of those shippers myself over the course of the last five or six years. They have been very frustrated by the length of time this has taken, but they are hopeful that it will now come to a successful conclusion. They do though have a number of technical questions, partly for clarification reasons, to understand exactly what the legal and practical consequences will be of some of the wording that is included in the bill. They also have at least some suggestions for improvements where they think some of the areas need to be strengthened.

Bill C-52 is important legislation that should be intended, and I think is intended, to level up the imbalance in the playing field that was described by the review panel that reported in the fall of 2010. We all now need to be focused on ensuring it does accomplish that objective. We will know that when we allow shippers who want to be heard the opportunity to come before the committee, give their testimony, give their approval or criticism whichever it may be. If they have specific recommendations for making the bill better, then I hope the committee will be open to receiving those recommendations for improvements.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George.

As I said earlier today, I got into politics to, in my own small way, expand freedom so people could take responsibility for their own lives, earn success and own their destiny. To make space for this freedom, I believe governments should only do the things that people cannot do for themselves. It is therefore with great skepticism that I always approach any proposal that legislates government action within the economy. The question is this. Does this legislation represent an action that is needed but that people cannot do on their own? In analyzing the industry of which we speak, I believe it does.

Canada is the second largest with the eighth least dense population of any country on earth. There are 5,500 kilometres separating Cape Spear, Newfoundland from the Yukon-Alaska border. On these vast lands, with much of them thinly populated, the prospect of ubiquitous railway competition is almost impossible. It is not the result of human error. It is the result of physical geography and math. As a result, we have only two class A railways in the country and many communities that require for their economic lifeblood the export of products to far away markets often have only one choice to ship those products.

Seventy per cent of Canada's goods and services are moved by surface freight. However, as I have said, we have only two class A railways to move them and in many places there is only one option. This creates immense economic imbalances between the buyer and the seller of the service. As such, there is a consensus that some redress of this economic imbalance is justified in this rare circumstance. As a result, we have proposed Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act, which is designed to do as I just described. Allow me to describe the practices that this law would codify.

The legislation would give shippers the right to a service level agreement with a railway. A shipper would now be able to ask their railway for an agreement and the railway would be obligated to provide one within 30 days. This statutory right to an agreement would be an important gain for all shippers, including small and medium-sized shippers. This right would allow shippers to initiate bilateral commercial negotiations with the railway and clarify in writing the service agreement the railway would provide.

These agreements could identify performance standards such as frequency of service, transit times and the number and type of cars that the railway would provide to the shipper. These agreements could also include recovery plans that identified the actions the railway would undertake to recover from service failure or the communication protocols for monitoring service performance and dealing with any service issues that might arise.

In most cases, shippers should be able to reach an agreement with their railway commercially, but when they cannot, the shipper should be able to go to the Canadian Transportation Agency and ask an independent arbitrator to establish service agreements for them. Furthermore, the shipper should now be able to trigger a fast and efficient arbitration process, thanks to the bill. All he or she has to do is demonstrate that an effort has been made to reach an agreement commercially and give advance notice to the railway before commencing or requesting arbitration.

Shippers get to control the timing of launching an arbitration process. The legislation allows shippers to frame the issues to be addressed in the arbitration process by identifying the services they need. This gives the shipper the ability and the flexibility to ask for what is important to them. Every shipper operates in unique circumstances and has unique needs, and that is why these agreements will take many different forms. Tailoring service agreements to suit circumstances of both shipper and railway will allow for the diverse nature of Canada's transportation economy to continue to flourish.

Let me be clear. The bill is not about forcing our railways into an agreement, but ensuring that their obligations are met. We want railways to continue to manage an efficient, low-cost network to meet the needs of all of their customers in their network. The arbitration will follow a very efficient process to make these decisions. In a market where time means money, shippers have repeatedly asked for a process that is quick and timely so they can focus on growing their businesses.

The bill stipulates that the shipper can get an arbitrated service agreement within 45 days, although this could be extended in unique circumstances by an additional 20 days. In very complex service agreements with the shipper and the railways, the extension would be applied. The point remains that this is a fast process, to ensure we continue the operation of our rail network and get our supplies to where they are most needed.

I should note that the government acted with a great deal of meticulous care in setting up this process. We realize that in the last three decades the federal government has largely gone out of the rail business, through reduced regulation and obviously reduced ownership. This experience with a private sector railway system has been an unmitigated success. We should celebrate every day the success that our railways and their workers have created through this free enterprise system. We should congratulate them for the enormous improvements they have achieved in service standards, particularly when compared to their international peers. At the same time, without reintroducing excessive government intervention into the system, we are redressing a natural market imbalance that is inherent in most rail sectors around the world, and particularly so in a country with our geography and population.

We on this side of the House of Commons understand that a commodity-based economy, spread across vast distances, will require an efficient, effective rail system to move the commodities to their marketplace. That is why we have acted in this bill to provide a system by which our free market rail industry can continue to prosper and connect businesses with customers, and customers with the goods and services they need.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for giving such an informative, accurate and superlative presentation on Bill C-52. As proof of that, Mr. Speaker, you saw that everyone clearly understood the value of the bill. They clearly understood my friend's message. Of course, there would be no questions or comments given that situation, so he is to be congratulated.

Let us look at the genesis of the bill and understand that Bill C-52 would not be in the House were there not some disparities in the rail service that has been provided to shippers across Canada by Canada's two railways. The Minister of State for Transport this morning described that as a duopoly, which is just a hair's breadth away from a monopoly. The bill would not be in the House if the relationship between the railways and the shippers was a perfect one.

The relationship has been far from perfect. The shippers could be appropriately called “captive shippers”; there is little or no alternative for shipping their products. These are primarily bulk products from the agriculture, mining, oil and gas and propane sectors. Rail is the most economical and most profitable way to ship bulk shipments across Canada. I am sure that is a point that will not be debated.

I am happy to support Bill C-52 because I have spent some time working with a particular sector that is prominent in my riding, the forest sector. While that sector reaches all across the country, my riding of Cariboo—Prince George, which I am sure my colleague from Prince George—Peace River would agree, could be appropriately called the forest capital of the world. In my riding, and the Peace River, Okanagan—Shuswap, Kelowna—Lake Country, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, Kootenay—Columbia and Okanagan—Coquihalla ridings, we all have sawmills, pulp mills, fibre mills and pellet mills. I can honestly say that those ridings combined probably ship the bulk of forest products from their locations to the U.S., Asia and abroad.

I serve as the chair of the Conservative forest caucus, and the members I just mentioned are part of that. I can remember, going back six years ago when I took on that position, that we were talking with the CEOs and the leaders in the forest industry across the country. They were telling us about some of the challenges they have; one of them was the rail service they were getting.

There were a number of other things, which our government has successfully addressed. One that we can be very proud of is the green transformation fund, which was a real winner in the forest industry across the country. It helped us to stay in tight competition with our U.S. counterparts. That is good because the U.S. is still our biggest market for forest products. We send the bulk of our products into the U.S. by rail, as we send to the coast for shipments overseas.

I remember this meeting from about four years ago. We had solved most of the problems and challenges and we asked what was left. They said we still need to deal with the service we are getting from the railways.

My colleagues and I made a promise to the leaders of the industry. We said that it was number one on our bucket list, that we would see this fixed. We said that we would get this solved one way or another and we began to work on it.

I will not say we did not have encouragement from colleagues across the way. It is a common interest. I thank them for their assistance.

We pushed that forward. There were a multitude of meetings where we got a very clear understanding of the problems with which the forest product shippers were faced. Also, it became evident that they did not have any means to seek remedy to get those problems fixed. There were problems such as were mentioned today, where an individual was expecting to have 65 railcars on site for the week of July 5, had a promise they would be there, only to find that after the shipper had geared all the production to be shipped that week, there were 37 cars, not 65. When the shipper called up the rail lines to ask where the rest of the cars were the answer was that they had not been able to get them, that they would give them to the shipper as soon as they got them.

That is not good enough. When railways make a promise to shippers that they will have 65 or 75 cars in that particular week, they have to keep that promise because an agreement, honesty and a good working relationship is all about that.

When shippers have cars show up to the pulp mills, where they are shipping rolls and bales of pulp and paper out of their mills and lo and behold there are holes in the roof and it is raining, they know there will be damage to the cargo inside. That is unacceptable. They need to have a way to seek remedy to that.

Shippers can be in production and all of a sudden 27 cars show up that were not ordered. When they phone the rail line, they are told that they probably will need them. If they say they do not need them for two weeks, they are told they already have them. They are then paying demurrage on them every day they are sitting on the site while they are trying to gear production to get them full. They did not ask for them, but they have them and they are paying rent on them until they use them.

The way it has been in the past is if the captive shippers, as I will call them again, were to bring their complaints to the rail lines, they could not seek a remedy that would be lasting. That is why they looked for help from the government. They tried to have a commercial arrangement that would solve things, but that was just simply not possible.

They looked to the government. We were pleased to step in and get this service agreement done so it would satisfy the shippers across the country, while at the same time it would make it something that the rail lines could work with. We know how important they are to moving goods back and forth across the country. It has to be an agreement that works for both sides. I think we have that.

It has been applauded by the shippers' coalition and major shippers across the country, since we put it all together after continuous discussions with them, trying to figure out how we could solve the problem. What would the remedy time be? How long would we give to get the agreement to work, to get the thing fixed? We have fines in there for not having remedies.

I am proud to stand here with my colleagues who have forest industries in their ridings, who were there to make that promise to the forest industry that we would get this fixed. These folks are from all across the country.

Our government has now done it. I want to thank the minister and the minister of state for their hard work in putting this together. I thank the forest industry for giving us the opportunity to put this together for it, to work with it. We thank it for their input.

Let us hope the bill will pass through the House and committee quickly. Maybe it can be approved. It is pretty good right now. At the end of the line, we will bring out the best product that these shippers can possibly expect.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his comments. He has acknowledged some points. I think everyone would agree that there is a requirement for action, that there is a concern. I am glad to see he had a more balanced assessment than the previous speaker, his colleague, the parliamentary secretary. The parliamentary secretary seemed to suggest that we do not need really government involved at all. His mindset is to just let the market decide. However, the member did lay out where he thinks government has a role. I want to get from him the concerns, though, we have had about this process. If we go back to 2007, I think it was—the member might correct me—his government talked about a wait and see approach, that we would try to kind of work things out.

We now have a bill in front of us acknowledging that it did not work.

Would he comment not only on what he thinks should be in the bill but also on the oversight in the bill—that is, to make sure that all the parties involved are going to live up to their commitment? Would he explain to us a bit more about the enforcement of the legislation and how we could actually ensure that products get to where they need to be, for everyone's benefit?

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member for Ottawa Centre agrees that government regulations should be a last resort. That is why we gave the two parties, the shippers and the rail lines, a period of time to try to work this out in a private commercial agreement.

Unfortunately, they were not able to do that.

Based upon that, we knew it had to be done. We have had many talks with the stakeholders. We listened to all sides of the story and looked at the challenges they have and tried to put a bill together based upon the input from the stakeholders on both sides. We think Bill C-52 contains the substance we need, including the period of time from when the complaint is first brought, the time allowed to resolve it and, if not resolved, a brief arbitration period, which can be extended for a short time. At that time, if the railways, for whatever reason, fail to rectify the situation they are subject to fines of $100,000 per day per complaint. If one single shipper has five complaints about bad rail cars, that would be $500,000 a day. If we multiply that by the number of forest outfits across the country, it could be significant.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member across the way and I share a common city and we share a common region in northern British Columbia.

He talked about the fact that this legislation is coming, has not been passed yet. He spoke to the importance of the issue and the importance of the issue in the riding, especially to grain farmers and to forestry producers who actually want to ship out product. My brother worked in a mill that literally could not ship out product. It had to shut down its pulp mill, waiting for cars.

Again, because the bill has not been passed yet, I would like the member to emphasize how important it is to get it done.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, to my colleague across the way, whether shipping is within North America, south of the border to our biggest market, the U.S., to either coast or across oceans, continuity and reliability in the shipping of our products is so important to our producers. That is what we are trying to accomplish, so that when producers want a specific number of cars in a specific time period, they can count on it. Their whole business and Canada's international trade reputation demands that those cars be there when they need them and that the product be shipped when it is supposed to be.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with my hon. colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert.

I would like to begin by wishing all of my constituents and colleagues a happy new year since this is my first speech in the House this year. I would also like to congratulate my colleague from Trinity—Spadina for her tremendous and brilliant work on this issue. I am sure that we have her to thank for the fact that the Conservative government decided to do something about this issue.

I would like to go over some facts and talk about why this bill came into being.

Rail transportation is the backbone of Canada's economy because 70% of our goods are shipped by rail. That is why it is critical that rail transportation services benefit both rail transportation companies and shippers.

The cost of rail transportation is also hurting Canadian shippers. Unfortunately, Bill C-52 is silent on the issue of rates because the government ignored the demands of a number of groups of shippers.

Canada's trade deficit continues to grow. It hit $2 billion in November. We cannot allow Canada's products to lose more ground competing on the world markets.

Rail transportation is essential not only to competitiveness, but also to the domestic economy. We also need rail transportation services to help keep trucks off the roads and to curb our greenhouse gas emissions. Although railways still make up a considerable proportion of surface transportation, frustrated businesses are turning to trucks when possible, and that is devastating to our environment. That is important to note.

We must also look at the economy as a whole, since Canada's trade deficit is increasing. As I mentioned, it reached nearly $2 billion in November, and our economy cannot afford to lose even more ground in light of the global situation.

The Conservatives' reluctance in the past to do anything for Canada's rail shippers shows their overall attitude towards rail transportation. Whether it is their inaction on new railway safety measures, cuts to VIA Rail Canada or their opposition to bringing high-speed rail service to Canada, the Conservatives refuse to give Canada's railway network the attention it deserves.

The Conservatives are taking a piecemeal approach to this country's transportation infrastructure that shows a lack of interest and a lack of investment. This is the case in my riding, which used to be a railway riding. It no longer is and we have to wonder why. One answer is the clear lack of investment to keep these railways running. Railways and their tracks are increasingly being sold off, when they could be used for other purposes, such as public transportation.

Instead of letting things go and making only occasional investments here and there, Canada needs a comprehensive approach to transportation that is based on a national public transportation and railway strategy. For years, farmers and other businesses have been paying the price for the poor quality of rail freight services, and have not managed to get Ottawa's attention.

The NDP's position is simple. We support businesses and exporters. We are determined to get them the transportation services they need and deserve.

Even though Bill C-52 does not follow through on certain demands from stakeholders, it should receive our support. I am rising in the House today because shippers are happy with it, more or less.

Now it is up to us to fill in the gaps, strengthen this bill for shippers and underscore the NDP's participation throughout the process. As I mentioned earlier, the member for Trinity—Spadina has done some excellent work on this issue.

We will keep working to ensure that we improve our country's rail transportation system and use it for what it was intended: to meet economic and environmental needs.

Unfortunately, Bill C-52 will cover only new service level agreements, and not those that already exist. Many shippers will have to continue to cope with unreliable and unfair service without any access to dispute resolution if their existing service agreements are violated.

Arbitration is available only for shippers who are in the midst of negotiating new contracts. Instead of offering fast, reliable conflict resolution for all shippers, as the NDP is asking for, Bill C-52 is offering a limited arbitration process for a small group of shippers.

The proposed arbitration process may be too costly for shippers. The burden of proof may be unfair if they have to prove that they are in need of services from the railway.

Certain shippers also wanted to tackle the issue of tariffs during the legislative process, but unfortunately the Conservatives made it clear that they would not address that issue until the next legislative review of the Canada Transportation Act in 2014-15.

Obviously, shippers agreed to look at tariffs at a later date and to focus on problems with service level agreements.

It is worth repeating that the mining sector is the second-largest employer in aboriginal communities, after the public service.

Improving rail freight transportation services for mining companies could also be of economic benefit to aboriginal people in certain areas of the country.

The whole question of rail freight is particularly important to rural areas. I come from a rural area. The industries that will be most affected by this are in western Canada, in British Columbia, as well as in Quebec and, to a lesser degree, Ontario. This represents both a challenge and an opportunity for everyone and for parliamentarians to really effect positive change for people in rural areas.

The Prairies are very sparsely populated, for instance. However, this matter is important to the small towns and rural communities of the Prairies, and those are the main groups we should be reaching out to.

Nearly 100 communities depend on the forest industry for their survival. That is the case in my riding, where most forestry-related transportation is done by truck. Why not invest in the railways that exist in my riding to transport lumber?

My colleagues and I would like to see penalties included in the agreements in relation to service levels, in order to compensate shippers for service disruptions, damages and loss of productivity.

Shippers are also afraid, and I agree with them, that this bill will not apply to rail shipments from Canada to the U.S. Why not?

In closing, this is an important piece of legislation. It needs improvements. Of course we hope this government will keep an open mind and accept many of our recommendations.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Pontiac, who works very hard representing the people in his part of the country, which is a very large riding. Sometimes we feel better when we take a look around us. I feel good looking at my colleague's riding from my beautiful Outaouais region.

I liked his speech for a number of reasons. The message we have been sending the government this morning is extremely important: the NDP will support the bill at second reading to get it to committee.

Having said that, this bill is not perfect. In my opinion, nothing is perfect. In this context, we would hope that our friends opposite are prepared to listen to the different viewpoints of the various stakeholders.

The government presents us with its bills as though they were perfect, necessary and very important. I am always surprised to see how long it takes them to introduce their bills. In fact, we have been waiting for this bill for five years.

Can my colleague explain why it has taken five years? Why has the government taken so long to introduce this bill, which various stakeholders have been asking for?

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Gatineau for his very important question. I must also point out that she does an excellent job representing her constituents. It is great to have neighbours who are so active in their community.

Railways used to cross the Pontiac. As the member pointed out, the crisis in the railway industry has been around for a long time. I truly believe that the only reason the Conservatives are moving on this issue is because of the pressure exerted by the official opposition and the work of my colleague from Trinity—Spadina. They have been confronted by the facts and forced to take action. They have put forward something good, but it obviously does not take into consideration all of the industry's needs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I live on Vancouver Island and we have been in pretty desperate straits with regard to rail service. Our passenger rail service has not been in operation for a number of years because of the state of the tracks and the other infrastructure. Our freight service is in jeopardy as well, although it is still operating. However, on Vancouver Island it is an important part of our transportation infrastructure.

In some of our rural communities rail infrastructure is critical for our economy and the environment as well because it helps keep some of those trucks off the road. In Nanaimo—Cowichan we have something called the Malahat and several times a year that road is regularly shut down, either due to accidents or due to weather conditions. The rail service then is even more critical for moving freight. I wonder if the member could comment on that.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Pontiac has very similar conditions. We have two roads and in the winter they are often extremely dangerous. Automobiles and large trucks are competing on two-lane roads. Forestry products or wood is being brought far north and mining products are coming from the west. Next to these two roads are tracks that are no longer used. One would think that the safety of my constituents would be well served if the government were to invest in renewing those tracks and making sure that shipping could occur along them.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Sodium Reduction Strategy for Canada Act

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

moved that Bill C-460, An Act respecting the implementation of the Sodium Reduction Strategy for Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to begin the debate at second reading on Bill C-460, a sodium reduction bill for Canada.

I know that when we choose our private members' bills a lot of thought goes into it because we basically get one shot at it. I did put a lot of thought into what I would bring forward for my private member's bill. As the health critic for the official opposition for the NDP, I tried to think of a measure that would have a very significant impact in improving the health of Canadians.

After looking at a whole number of issues and talking with a lot of people, I decided that this was probably one of the single most important issues that could be brought forward because of the over-consumption of sodium in all of our diets. I selected the bill because there has already been an incredible amount of work done on a sodium reduction plan for Canada. The provinces and territories and experts have basically come together and said that we absolutely have to do something in terms of reducing the amount of sodium that Canadian ingest. That is why I brought forward the bill.

Over-consumption of sodium is a major contributor to heart attacks, strokes and other illnesses in Canada. In fact, StatsCan estimates that Canadians currently consume about 3,400 milligrams of sodium per day, which is more than double the recommended intake of 1,500 milligrams. It is estimated that 77% of the sodium consumed by Canadians comes from prepackaged food.

Anyone of us could go into a grocery store and see Canadians poring over labels and trying to figure out what it is that they are eating. People do want to make healthy choices, but the way things are constructed now and the amount of sodium that is in the food that we are eating is really quite astronomical.

The bill seeks to reduce sodium levels in the food supply by implementing the sodium reduction strategy for Canada. This is not a strategy that I came up with, it is a strategy that already exists. It was developed by the expert sodium working group in 2010. It was a group that was set up by the minister. Their report was released in 2010, but it has not yet been implemented by the federal government.

The core of my bill is to implement that strategy. The bill also prioritizes a number of areas where work needs to be done by ensuring that the amount of sodium in prepackaged and restaurant foods is reduced to safe levels. It will improve the labelling of sodium on foods. It will help protect children from being deceived by advertisements for high-sodium foods. Here I want to use Quebec as a model. Quebec has a very successful program around advertising as it affects children. This is a model that we should be using in all of Canada to protect children from the junk food and high-sodium content that they are ingesting without even knowing it.

The bill would establish the Government of Canada as the leader in monitoring and ensuring progress is being made by food companies to achieve sodium reduction plans. All the details about how this will be done are in the bill. It is very clearly laid out. As I say, the core of the bill is to implement the strategy, which already exists from 2010.

In developing the bill, I had tremendous support from across the country. I have been working with different organizations on the bill. I just want to quote from some of them.

Bill Jeffery, national coordinator of the Centre for Science in the Public Interest, has done incredible work on this issue over many years. In fact, he was a member of the sodium working group. In his press conference yesterday, he pointed out that this year as many as 16,000 Canadians will die needlessly of heart attacks, heart failure and strokes caused by excess dietary sodium, three-quarters of which is added to foods by food manufacturers and restaurants.

As well, the Canadian Medical Association and its president, Dr. Anna Reid, said:

Canadians consume an average of 3,400 milligrams of sodium daily, well above recommended levels. High sodium levels in food are responsible for almost one-third of hypertension cases in Canada. Hypertension is a major cause of heart disease (heart attack and heart failure), stroke and kidney failure, and it is an important contributor to premature death, disability and health care costs in Canada. It is estimated that 7.5 million Canadians have been diagnosed with this chronic condition, with an estimated 1,100 new patients being added every day.

It goes on to say:

The Sodium Reduction Strategy for Canada Act is an important piece of legislation that can lead to healthier lives for all Canadians, and we urge all Members of Parliament to support it.

One of the main advocates of action in this strategy for Canada has been Dr. Norm Campbell who is the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, Canadian Institutes for Health Research chair in hypertension and prevention and control. He is from the University of Calgary.

In his letter, he says:

The bill provides concrete measures for reducing the amount of salt food processors add to food. The measures proposed in the Bill include close government monitoring and oversight and mandatory labelling of foods that fail to comply with sodium targets. If passed, Bill C-460 will for the first time provide Canadians an opportunity to even know if they are even making a healthy or unhealthy food choice.

He goes on at length about what is in the bill, but that is a particularly pertinent comment.

I also point out the breadth and depth of the work that has been done on this issue of sodium reduction. Some members in the House may remember that a year ago we all received a letter that was addressed to the Prime Minister and was signed by 17 major organizations across Canada, including the Heart and Stroke Foundation and the Canadian Medical Association. That letter was a real convergence of medical and scientific individuals, experts and organizations who came together with a very significant letter to the Prime Minister. In their letter of January 2012, they said:

—we are concerned that recent federal decisions not to endorse the federal, provincial and territorial sodium implementation report, presented at the November 2011 Health Ministers Summit meeting, will be seen as a signal to the food processing industry and food service establishments that our national government is not serious about the need to commit to the 2016, as well as interim, targets. The argument that the sodium implementation plan would fail to garner commitment from industry sends the clear message to Canadians that private interest takes precedence over food safety and [the] health and wellness [of Canadians]...

This was a very thoughtful and well-worded message to the Prime Minister.

In addition, since we have been developing this bill and it was introduced a number of months ago, we now have close to 40 organizations and key experts across the country who are supporting it. They include: the Canadian Medical Association; the Canadian Public Health Association; the Dietitians of Canada; the Canadian Nurses' Association; the Canadian Pharmacists Association; Public Health Physicians of Canada; Canadian Federation of Nurses Union; Hypertension Canada; the Kidney Foundation of Canada; Food Secure Canada; Canadian Institute for Child Health; Canadian Society of Internal Medicine; the Canadian Women's Health Network.

I have just read a very few of the endorsers. These are organizations, and also a number of individuals, that have specifically endorsed this bill.

I am very interested to hear the comments of government members and of other opposition members. Rarely, in public discourse, is there a time when a number of different interests come together where there is a very strong consensus and that is what we have seen on sodium reduction. Let us remember that there was an expert working group put together by the Minister of Health. It produced a report by consensus. It was a unanimous report. It included industry representatives. That report came out and there was no follow-up from the government.

In addition to that, the provinces and the territories, in their own meetings, have considered this issue. They too have called on the federal government to take action on implementing a sodium reduction strategy.

We see the body and the weight of all of these organizations across the country. It seems to me that we are at a particular time where there is a very broad consensus about the need to take serious action and to show we do put public health and public interests as the top priority. If this plan were implemented, there have been estimates that we could save something like $2 billion a year in health costs.

I am also concerned about the kids. We think about our kids and what they eat. I know many us here are parents who have young children and we do the best we can to make sure our children eat well; yet, it is so difficult to do with the array of products that are around us.

When we think about the health of our children as they grow into adults, sodium is not the only issue. There are many factors to a healthy lifestyle. There are things we can do ourselves, and that is certainly something that is part of the bill, by advocating for education and proper information and disclosure. However, it seems to me that the need to ensure there is a sodium reduction plan that is real, meaningful and takes proper steps is absolutely essential.

Many other countries have done this. The World Health Organization lists it as a priority. The sticking point is probably going to be whether it is voluntary or whether there is a plan that has clear target reductions, as my bill would lay out.

We have had a voluntary regime and opportunity now for many years, and frankly it has failed. It is now imperative that we see this as a public health issue that impacts all of Canada and all Canadians. The federal government must demonstrate its leadership and commitment to follow through on the incredible body of work and the plan being produced. That is a duty. It is a public responsibility, and anything less than that is a cop-out.

I want to argue today that continuing on some kind of voluntary path has not produced the results we need to see. The bill would move us in a direction to adopt the plan that was agreed to by the expert sodium working group. It is a reasonable proposition. The steps contained within it are reasonable, and I think it is achievable.

I would encourage all members of the House to not dismiss the bill because it has come from the opposition, but to look at the merits of the bill and who supports the bill. These organizations are non-partisan. They base their decisions on merit. They base their decisions about what they do on evidence, on medical information. When they say they are supporting the bill, maybe they do not agree with everything, every word—if it goes to committee, we will take a look at that—but the principle of the bill and what it is trying to do is there, and it is showing it has very broad support.

I am happy we are having this debate, and I look forward to the debate. I certainly encourage all members of the House, from all sides, to look at the bill in all seriousness. I want members to consider what we are here for and what we do to uphold public health, the public interest, to represent our constituents, and most of all, the future generation of kids, who we want to make sure have the best opportunity to grow up healthy in this wonderful country.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for bringing this issue forward. Earlier I noticed a salt shaker on the member's desk, and this addresses the major problem with the bill. It addresses processed foods. The NDP could spend millions of dollars on a sodium registry, but Canadians who want choice can still pick up that salt shaker and put salt on their food. That is why our voluntary approach is better, especially with the education and collaboration, and it is working.

My question is quite straightforward. In the member's bill, Quebec can opt out. I want to ask why. Would this not create a two-tiered sodium system and give Quebec a monopoly on certain products? For Canadians who want choice, especially around Super Bowl, I would not want to see Canadians smuggling potato chips and cheeses across the Quebec border.

I would like the member to address why one province gets treated differently than other provinces.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, actually, this bill is about choice. It is not about banning any foods. It is about proper disclosure of information and allowing Canadians to make healthy choices about what they are eating and to make sure that the industry is very clear about what it is doing.

I am very surprised that the only thing the member can come up with in the bill is this issue about Quebec. We could get into a great discussion now about Canadian federalism, but I think he is aware that a number of bills that come forward in the House are very respectful of Quebec and its role in Confederation. The fact is that a number of bills have this clause to respect the jurisdiction of Quebec.

This is not about creating two tiers but a pan-Canadian strategy working within federalism, a strategy that the NDP has laid out on so many occasions. We have put forward many bills, whether on child care, post secondary education, housing, and now the sodium reduction bill, recognizing how we work as a federation in this country and with Quebec. This bill simply reflects that very strong principle that we have always put forward.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, from my reading of this, it is make-sense bill. If we give consumers more information about what they eat, they get healthier.

We know that heart disease is one of the number one killers, if not the number one killer, in Canada. Sodium consumption is one of the major contributors. Therefore, it surprises me to hear any resistance from the Conservative benches to this idea. It seems that increasing choice for Canadians just makes sense.

What are the expected impacts on the health of Canadians from divulging this information? Would my hon. colleague have any comments on that?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the impact, first and foremost, is that Canadians would have a lot more information about what they are eating, whether their purchases in grocery stores or meals in restaurants. To me, that is very important.

Part of the issue here is to track what is happening with sodium reduction and to make sure that is fully disclosed. I think that more and more people are very interested in what is going on. People do take their own health very seriously. Therefore, within the bill, some of the impacts would certainly be better education and better information.

At the end of the day it is about meeting the targets that have already been laid out in guidelines from Health Canada but are simply not being met. That is the irony of the bill. It is all there. The work has been done and all been laid out, but it is actually not being implemented. It is not that I am creating anything new with this bill but implementing what we already know and what needs to be done.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I think everyone in this House can agree that sodium reduction is an important goal when it comes to the health of Canadians. The Government of Canada is committed to helping Canadians move toward healthier diets. We do this in many ways, one of the most notable being Canada's food guide.

When it comes to sodium, our government has already taken meaningful action and this approach is working. That is why I will not be supporting Bill C-460.

For a bit of background, the government established a sodium working group in 2007, which included representatives from food manufacturing and food service industry groups, health-focused non-governmental organizations, the scientific community, consumer advocacy groups, health professional organizations and government. The working group produced the report, “Sodium Reduction Strategy for Canada”.

The report recommended that the government adopt a voluntary approach to reduce the average amount of sodium that Canadians consume from 3,400 milligrams per day to 2,300 milligrams per day by 2016. It was also recommended that the approach engage different kinds of stakeholders, including the food industry, provincial and territorial governments and Canadians themselves.

Let us be clear: our government is totally willing to co-operate with our partners in order to achieve that goal. Our government has already begun implementing a voluntary system meant to reduce the average amount of sodium that Canadians should consume.

Our approach is based on three main pillars: increasing awareness and educating Canadians; guiding the industry towards reducing the amount of sodium in processed foods; and research.

I will discuss our government's approach in more detail a little later.

Bill C-460 references the sodium working group's report but proposes a much more heavy-handed approach. Instead of a voluntary approach, the bill calls for new legislative and regulatory measures to implement the sodium reduction strategy for Canada. Sodium levels in foods would be heavily regulated and industry would be required to report the sodium content in prepackaged food so that a public registry of this information could be established and maintained.

There are several problems with the bill. There would be financial costs to taxpayers, industry and Canadians. There may also be unintended risks to food safety and health. We would also lose the current balance that has been struck between the roles and responsibilities of key stakeholders. Finally, the measures proposed in this bill could not feasibly be regulated or enforced. Let me examine each of these issues in more detail.

First, the cost to taxpayers to implement these measures would not be insignificant. New resources and regulations would be required to develop, implement and maintain a public registry for well over 100,000 products sold domestically. It is also not clear how this registry would be used. Foods that are low in sodium are not necessarily healthy foods. We would not want Canadians to think that any food that the registry says is low in sodium is healthy. Additional resources would also be required for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency for compliance and enforcement activities.

There would also be a significant burden to industry, the costs of which would likely be passed on to Canadians. Adopting this bill would take money out of the pockets of small businesses across the country and add layers of red tape. This would not be a good approach to take, especially during a time when the economy remains fragile.

The costs of implementing this bill go beyond financial impacts. Let me address two of the key health and safety risks that implementing this bill would pose.

First, the 90-day coming into force period would not afford industry the time needed to extensively reformulate food products. This is a significant oversight, as sodium is not only used for flavouring but also for food preservation and control of pathogens in food. The result could be unintended food safety consequences to Canadians.

Second, the warning statements proposed by the bill may be misleading to Canadians when they are trying to choose healthy foods. Products with no sodium warning statement could be perceived as healthy choices, even though they may not in fact be nutrient-rich foods. Nutrition labelling must cover all the bases if it is to have the desired positive effects.

We already have the nutrition facts table on prepackaged foods that provides information on various nutrients, including the sodium level in a serving of food and the percent daily value. A warning label for sodium alone could divert attention from this valuable tool.

The government wants Canadians to have choices, and to have the information they need to reduce their sodium intake. To achieve that, we need to take more ambitious action than this bill proposes.

In addition to financial costs and potential health risks, the adoption of Bill C-460 would not respect the important balance with stakeholders that has been struck in the work our government is already doing. Sodium reduction is a shared responsibility among the food industry, the Government of Canada, provincial and territorial governments and Canadians themselves. We need to continue with this balanced approach by engaging with all our partners and avoid shifting the majority of the burden onto any one stakeholder.

Finally, I mentioned that one of the problems with this bill is that the measures being proposed could not be feasibly regulated or enforced. Let me explain what I mean.

In seeking to enable industry to provide Canadians with healthier choices, the Government of Canada engaged interested stakeholders to develop guidance to the food industry to reduce sodium in processed foods. This guidance was released less than a year ago. Bill C-460 calls for this guidance to be put into regulation. Not only is that not feasible, but it is unnecessary. In order to understand why this is the case, I will take the House through the core elements of the guidance.

The guidance serves as a guide for the food industry to reduce sodium in its products by outlining sodium level benchmarks for processed food categories. The benchmarks have two components that must work together to be effective, a sales-weighted average and a maximum limit.

The Government of Canada has recognized that reducing sodium levels in the more popular products within the food category, such as bread, would have a greater impact than only targeting those with the high sodium levels. The sales-weighted average does this by taking into account the sales numbers across an entire food category, so that sodium levels would be reduced in products that are the most popular with Canadians. At the same time, the maximum limit targets the products within a food category that might otherwise remain high in sodium, such as salt and vinegar potato chips, to help decrease their sodium levels as well. It is the combination of the sales average and the maximum limit that will effectively reduce sodium content.

In addition, the guidance cannot be put into regulation as it is not possible to enforce an average. Flexibility is needed to help ensure that the sodium in the more popular foods is reduced while still providing Canadians with the food options they expect.

The food industry is an active partner in achieving our collective goal. A regulatory approach is not required.

We can see that there are many concerns with Bill C-460.

The Government of Canada adopted a different approach to reduce the amount of sodium consumed by Canadians. Our approach favours awareness and education, so that Canadians can make informed decisions regarding the food they eat.

In February 2012, the Minister of Health announced $4 million for new activities as part of the healthy eating and awareness initiative. A component of this is a social marketing campaign to raise awareness of healthy eating, including reducing sodium intake. The goal is to both educate and motivate Canadians to make healthy food choices. In addition, the food industry has already demonstrated willingness to put more healthy choices into the Canadian marketplace. As Canadians' demand for lower sodium options grows, industry will respond to that demand. We are also working with industry to collect information. Imposing mandatory reporting is simply unnecessary.

In fact, I am pleased to say that early progress toward the 2016 goal is already evident. The government carried out a small monitoring project to estimate changes in the sodium levels in three food categories that are popular with Canadians: bread, canned soups and cereals. The results of this project indicate that the majority of new products being introduced in these three categories have sodium levels below the 2016 maximum and existing products in these categories have seen reductions that will have them well placed to reach the goal by 2016.

We have already seen the results that the bill says it would achieve. In fact, adopting the bill would jeopardize progress already being made through the current collaborative approaches. The Government of Canada continues to be committed to helping Canadians move toward healthier diets and creating conditions that make healthier choices easier choices. We are already beginning to see positive results. The heavy-handed approach proposed by Bill C-460 is not necessary.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support Bill C-460 that would implement a sodium strategy that would be clear, concise, accountable, reportable and in fact achieve the goal of reducing sodium intake among Canadians.

Why do we need this bill? Personally, I do not think we would have needed a bill like this if the government had been doing the work it was supposed to do. The Government of Canada has a responsibility, through the Minister of Health, to protect the health of Canadians and to prevent disease where possible. That is the clear mandate of the Minister of Health and the federal government.

As we heard from the hon. member who introduced the bill, high sodium intake creates hypertension or high blood pressure, as it is called, and heart disease and strokes. We know these have caused some of the highest numbers of deaths and disease in this country and cost a huge amount of money.

I noted that my colleague across the way, the hon. parliamentary secretary, talked about costs. The cost to the health care system from hypertension, stroke and heart disease is actually inestimable when one compares it to what it would cost to implement this bill.

In 2007 the government, under the then health minister, set up a sodium working group to look at the issue of the amount of sodium Canadians were taking. The group heard it was three times the amount that Canadians should be taking to keep them healthy and that it should do something about that. That was what the Minister of Health and the government did in 2007.

The sodium working group was set up, and in the interim the then Minister of Health suggested that there would be some voluntary guidelines put in place by industry to bring down the amount of sodium. Why industry? It is because the government cannot come into my kitchen and tell me how much salt I can put in my food. We know that 77% of high sodium intake in this country comes from processed foods. The Minister of Health said that the government would ask processed food manufacturers, the food industry and certain restaurants to look at this and voluntary diminish it until they heard from the working group.

The working group did that, coming down with its report in 2010, three years later. The working group decided it wanted bring down the current sodium intake by Canadians. It was already clearly defined by the working group that by 2016, 95% of Canadians would actually reduce their very high level of sodium consumption and have a set level of sodium.

In the working group there were the food industry, academics and health care professionals. It is most important to note that there were two levels of government at the table. There were federal and provincial governments. They all had a role to play. The only government that had a role to play in ensuring that regulations were put in place to decrease the amount of sodium was the federal government. The provinces were there at the table because they have to take on the high cost of health care when people get sick, so they have a vested interest in this. Only the federal government could have done the job.

That is why I said that this bill should not have been necessary. In 2010, when the report came down, it was found that the work in the interim that was being voluntarily undertaken by industry to bring down sodium levels was not working. Nothing was happening. In 2010, all of the people and groups within the sodium working group, including health care professionals and the provinces, looked to the federal government and suggested getting an implementation strategy moving.

Nothing happened. In fact, the current Minister of Health moved very swiftly to disband the group so that nothing could happen, so that no follow up could be done. I do not even understand why a minister of health would do that.

This is not new. Members have seen the same Minister of Health and same government, who have a mandate to protect Canadians' health and decrease the amount of disease in Canada where possible, fail abysmally on the sodium strategy. They have done nothing, except to say they will educate people.

That is good, but education is only one part of any kind of strategy to bring about a decrease in certain risky health behaviours. We all know that. We have seen that with tobacco and with practically every other thing that used to cause death a long time ago and now has changed. There is evidence that tells us that this is how things work.

The minister has had a result from the sodium working group. She has had reports from her own health department. Provinces and territories have asked her to do something about this because voluntary initiatives are not working. The minister disbanded the working group and has done absolutely nothing. This is now five years later. This is 2013. Nothing has happened. Imagine how many people continue to increase their intake of salt and continue to be at risk and get hypertension, heart disease and stroke. Obviously this does not seem to matter.

I heard the parliamentary secretary say that it is totally useless to regulate. One of the tools the government has is regulation. Governments exist for that. They do not exist to tell me how much salt to put in my pot. Governments can educate me but they have the duty and the responsibility to regulate foods for Canadians' safety, to regulate the content of harmful ingredients in any food. Governments around the world have been doing this for years.

Let me tell members what some governments are doing. The United Kingdom has a food standards association that holds the government's feet to the fire as it has now put in regulations to reduce salt consumption by adults. Finland has taken legislative action and is a world leader in population-wide salt reduction primarily through punitive high salt labelling. It punishes industry that goes above the levels. Then there is Ireland, which does not punish but rewards industry. It uses a positive reinforcement methodology where it legislates and regulates and then it advertises those companies that meet the standards. Ireland has used one tact and Finland is using another. At the end of the day, governments are using their legislative authority and their regulatory authority to change the salt content in food.

In Canada we have a medicare system where we pay for everyone's illness and disease when they get sick and they need medically necessary care. The cost to the system will be extraordinary if we do not take steps to do this.

Once again, I do not understand why the government has not done it with sodium. I do not understand why it has not done it with trans fats. The government has had every single advisory group, including the health department, tell it that it must regulate trans fats in processed foods. It has not done it.

Then we have the issue of energy drinks. The president of the United States has taken this on as a personal agenda, to look at what that country can do to regulate or legislate energy drinks. Canadians have died from drinking energy drinks. The minister moved to do one thing. She said the allowable amount of caffeine in energy drinks will be dropped to a certain level, but the point is that even that level is unacceptable. All people asked for was for them to be sold behind the counter in pharmacies, but that is too much for the government to do.

Obviously the government and the minister seem to favour not getting industry angry at them. If the Minister of Industry was doing that I would understand. That is his mandate. The Minister of Health's mandate has nothing to do with industry. The Minister of Health's mandate is to protect Canadians and prevent disease. Why has she not done anything about it? Now the hon. member for Vancouver East has to bring forward a bill to tell the government it must do what it is supposed to do.

The working group talked about governments working collaboratively with health professionals, academia, industry and provincial governments to bring about a strategy. Provincial governments are waiting. Everyone is waiting to see what will happen.

The hon. member has brought forward a bill. I support the bill but nothing is going to come of it. We have a majority government that could and should have the political will to do what it must to help Canadians with their health, to help them prevent disease, to help protect them from illnesses, but that is not happening. I support the bill but I do not think it will get anywhere, and that is a very sad indictment of the Conservative government.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the other members who have spoke in the House and I agree with the member for Vancouver East, as does the government, that the average sodium intake in Canada is definitely higher than it should be.

We are committed to the goal of lowering sodium intake from 3,400 milligrams per day to 2,300 milligrams per day by 2016. I am happy to report that early studies indicate that we are already on track toward reaching this goal without heavy-handed legislation or regulations. That is why I do not support this bill.

The Government of Canada currently takes a voluntary multi-stakeholder approach to sodium reduction, as recommended by the report, “Sodium Reduction Strategy for Canada”. Despite, the call from Bill C-460 to implement this report, the bill does not follow the report's key recommendations. It fails to capitalize on the benefits of the current collaborative approach and would increase burden to industry through new legislative and regulatory measures. The bill may also pose risks to food safety and health and carries financial cost to government, industry and Canadians. The measures proposed in the bill ignore the shared responsibility in reducing sodium intake in Canada. For sodium reduction efforts to be effective, responsibility must be shared among Canadians, the food industry and federal, provincial and territorial governments.

Industry has accepted the challenge of reducing sodium levels, while maintaining food safety and consumer acceptance. In fact, industry has responded to the demands of Canadians and is putting more healthy choices onto the Canadian marketplace. We are already seeing positive progress toward meeting the sodium reduction targets. Data recently collected from a sample of breads, breakfast cereals and canned soup shows that sodium levels have been reduced by 10% overall in these product categories. This is one-third of the way to the 2016 goal.

The fact is that these early achievements have been made without the heavy-handed measures proposed by the bill. Why change things now? We are on the road to recovery, as it were.

As Canadians, we have a critical role as well. It is the responsibility of all of us as individuals to become aware of nutrition issues and what is in our food so we can take more informed choices when we are the grocery store, when we eat at home or when we eat out. However, health is not just about eating; it is also about exercise and fitness.

Finally, this government's role, along with provincial and territorial governments, is to help promote the healthier choice as the easiest choice for Canadians. We do this through a three pillar approach that includes awareness and education for Canadians, guidance to industry and research.

The Government of Canada's current approach to sodium reduction strikes the right balance and respects the responsibilities of all stakeholders. Let me describe some of the work that our government is doing.

As members know, in 2010, our government launched the healthy eating awareness and education initiative to raise Canadians' awareness about the benefits of healthy eating. The goal is to help inform Canadians so they can choose a healthier choice. This initiative promotes plain language messages about healthy eating, sodium reduction and healthy weights for Canadians.

The first two years concentrated on the Nutrition Facts Education Campaign, with a focus on percent daily value. The percent daily value can help Canadians determine if a specific amount of food has a little or a lot of a nutrient, such as sodium. This government has used innovative ways to deliver this campaign with the collaboration of Food & Consumer Products of Canada and its member companies.

Public opinion research results have shown an increase of 5% in the use of the nutrition facts table over a two-year period. In addition, almost half of those surveyed said that having nutritional information available had influenced the decisions they made when buying food.

The Eat Well Campaign was launched in September 2012 and includes messages on sodium reduction. Early findings show consistent positive indicators of intent to change behaviour. The Eat Well Campaign continues to work with the provinces and territories, non-governmental organizations, health professionals and retailers as we move forward.

This demonstrates that, while still in the early stages, the current approach is working. That is why this government continues to collaborate with various stakeholders and has done so recently to develop guidance to industry to reduce sodium in processed foods.

The Government of Canada released guidance for the food industry on reducing sodium in processed foods in June of 2012. The bill proposes that this guidance be put into regulation. This is unnecessary. Health Canada's guidance notes specific sodium level benchmarks for processed food categories. It is intended to serve as a guide for the food industry to reduce sodium in its products. This will help Canadians reach the 2016 average sodium intake goals.

If passed, the bill would require that benchmark levels set out in the guidance become mandatory limits, with warnings on labels for any prepackaged foods that exceeded these levels. However, the benchmarks are based upon averages for entire food categories, such breads or cereals. They were not designed to apply to individual foods.

As a result, the requirement for labelling of individual products with warnings stating that the food does not meet Health Canada's sodium reduction targets would be misleading to Canadians and go against the intended purpose of such a label. Furthermore, the guidance cannot be put into regulation as it is simply not possible to enforce an average.

In addition, the bill does not take into consideration food safety or food categories such as prosciutto, which are not expected to follow guidance given the nature of the product.

Indeed, the bill would pose many challenges. While unintentional, implementing the bill may potentially have negative impacts on food safety and health; I repeat, negative impacts on food safety and health. Salt- and sodium-containing food additives play important roles in the preservation of numerous foods, such as processed meats and cheese.

The bill's 90-day coming into force period would require a rapid reduction of sodium. The bill simply does not anticipate the food safety consequences that this could create. For products that cannot meet the sodium levels within the short timelines proposed by the bill, warning labels would be required. These warning labels could very well have negative health impacts that the bill, again, would not address.

A warning label for sodium alone could be very misleading to Canadians. Sodium is not the only nutrient that needs to be considered when trying to make healthier choices. A product without a sodium warning label may be perceived as a healthy choice, but may not actually contain the nutrients required to support a healthy diet.

Warning labels on foods may not achieve the desired health benefits and may not be appropriate, as risk is not associated with consumption of a single food or nutrient but, rather, overall consumption patterns.

This government's approach has been to encourage healthy eating through positive messaging, awareness and education activities, as I have described, not through unnecessary and misleading warning labels. Almost all prepackaged foods already require a nutrition facts label that has nutrient information, including the amount of sodium preserving. This table gives Canadians the information they need to make informed choices.

Finally, the bill would impose a considerable and unnecessary regulatory and administrative burden on the government and on industry. To illustrate, there are upwards of 100,000 prepackaged foods on the Canadian market, and each of these products would fall under the requirement to provide the Minister of Health with information on sodium content. A public registry would have to be established to communicate this information. This enforcement cost would be significant and would require new resources. The added compliance burden to industry would also be significant. This could result in costs being passed on to Canadians. In addition, it is unclear what the database would be used for.

As I stated earlier, a food low in sodium is not necessarily a healthy food. It would be inappropriate and misleading for people to use a registry that did not present the complete nutritional picture as a guide to healthy and unhealthy foods.

Multi-stakeholder efforts to reduce sodium intake in Canada are still in the early stages, and despite this, we are starting to see progress. It will take time for the food industry to adjust its products so they continue to be safe and acceptable to Canadians. While promoting sodium reduction is worthwhile, the bill fails to make the case for changing course now to take on such a heavy-headed expense of an unnecessary approach.

For all of these reasons, I cannot support the bill. It is my belief that the majority of the House would agree.

While it is well intentioned, I do not think that all the factual information has been examined. We do not want to take a heavy-handed approach. We want to do as we did with trans fats. We did this voluntary approach in trans fats. It worked. Now the trans fat issue looks very good compared to the way it looked before. We are doing the same thing with sodium intake.

This is an issue that our government takes very seriously, but we want it to work out. We believe that this voluntary approach will work.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The time provided for consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

It being 2:30 p.m., he House stands adjourned until Monday, February 4, at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)