Finance Committee on Oct. 19th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Welcome to our witnesses today. We appreciate you being here very much and we look forward to your presentations. We thank you also for the work you've put into your submissions to our committee, and I assure you our members will all have a really good look at those.

This morning I'm going to hold you to the five minutes you've been told you have, and I will give you an indication when you have one minute or less remaining. Then I'll draw your presentation to an immediate close, of course, to allow time for exchange with committee members thereafter.

Again, thank you for being here and let's get under way.

We will commence with the Centre for Science in the Public Interest, Bill Jeffery. You have five minutes, sir.

[Bill Jeffery, National Coordinator, Centre for Science in the Public Interest]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the invitation to appear before the committee.

The Centre for Science in the Public Interest is a non-profit consumer health advocacy organization specializing in nutrition issues, with offices in Ottawa and Washington, D.C.

Our Ottawa health advocacy is funded by more than 100,000 subscribers to our monthly Nutrition Action Healthletter, which is read by more than 1,000 residents in most federal ridings. CSPI does not accept funding from industry or government, and Nutrition Action does not carry advertisements.

Diet-related disease is an urgent public health problem in this country. Every year, diet-related cases of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and certain forms of cancer prematurely end the lives of tens of thousands of Canadians. Health Canada estimates it robs the Canadian economy of $6.6 billion due to health care costs and lost productivity. These numbers describe real, avoidable deaths and financial losses, both on a grand scale.

Plainly, tackling diet-related disease needn't involve significant program expenditures in every case. For instance, we hope the government, members of this committee, and their caucus colleagues will support the expansion of existing nutrition labelling rules when Bill C-283 comes to a vote in the House of Commons on November 8.

The current regulations are predicted to reduce the burden of diet-related disease by approximately 4% by producing $5 billion in cumulative economic benefits in the coming two decades at a non-recurring cost of about one-fifth of 1% of food sales for a single year during the phase-in period--in other words, a minimum 2,000% return on investment.

Today I will focus mainly on food tax reform because it is probably the best studied, most promising economic incentive for healthy living.

Recommendations to reform food taxes have been advanced in expert reports published--and I won't give the entire list--in the Canadian Institute for Health Information, the World Health Organization, and the U.S. Institute of Medicine.

Notably, the federal-provincial-territorial integrated pan-Canadian healthy living strategy, which was supported by ministers of health of all political stripes, recommends that Canadian governments, “Undertake [a] feasibility study on fiscal measures to encourage healthy living (i.e. tax credits/penalties, subsidies, price supports, etc. )”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Mr. Jeffery, please continue your presentation. We'll figure out what that is and get back to you on it if it's a fire alarm or something. Please continue.

[Bill Jeffery]

Two weeks ago the Canadian Medical Association recommended to this committee that it explore similar measures.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

We have to vacate and we will resume shortly.

We suspend.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Again, Mr. Jeffery, thank you.

We've discovered, as a consequence of the re-entry challenges we faced, who the real power brokers are in this building: it is the security and cleaning staff. We here know that.

I invite you to recommence your presentation at any point you wish and we will now hold you to five minutes from this point on.

Thank you.

[Bill Jeffery]

I appreciate that.

I will resume where I was in the interest of more time for questions and answers.

Our recommendations involve both taxation and tax relief depending on the nutrient profiles of food. The federal government currently collects about $2 billion in tax revenue from GST on food. At present, the Excise Tax Act appears to partly acknowledge the importance of nutrition by imposing taxes on soft drinks, candy, and snack food, but promotes unhealthy diets by taxing low-fat milk and vegetable dishes when sold in restaurants, as well as club soda, salads, vegetable and fruit trays, and small bottles of water when sold in retail stores. Meanwhile, many unhealthy foods sold in retail stores are tax free, like sugary breakfast cereals, trans-fat-laden shortening, high saturated fat cheese, chicken wings, coffee cream, and even unhealthy luxury foods like salty caviar.

The federal government should consider whether economic disincentives to choose healthy foods and tax relief on health-eroding foods comport with this or any government's commitment to reduce the burden of chronic disease. Quite frankly, tax incentives should be smart, not dumb. They should prevent disease and promote efficiency, not prevent efficiency and promote disease.

A British epidemiologist estimated that applying his country's 17.5% value-added tax to foods high in saturated fat would help prevent between 1,800 and 2,500 heart attack deaths per year in the United Kingdom. Researchers examining conditions in the United States, Denmark, Tanzania, China, and Norway have lent credence to the potential of tax/price incentives as a means to help achieve population-level dietary change. In short, sensibly designed food tax incentives could help internalize the costs of food choices and promote nutritious eating.

I want to speak for a moment about the potential regressive effects. The average Canadian individual now spends about $56 per year paying GST on food purchases. In 2006-07, the GST credit reimburses $354 to the average single individual earning $20,000 per year and $708 to a family of four with the same income. These rebates could be increased by a few dollars per person to offset further regressive effects, if any, of GST reform or increased even more ambitiously to help reduce food insecurity.

This committee should also be concerned about federal corporate tax incentives that undermine Health Canada's national nutrition promotion goals such as permissible deductions from taxable revenue for advertising expenses to promote junk food, or film production credits that support, for example, children's television programs that teach children how to count using lollipops or ice cream cones.

In conclusion, policy-makers must consider the causes of the causes of diet-related diseases, including, but not limited to, rising rates of obesity, and then focus on solutions that the best available evidence indicates will produce population health benefits.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you very much, sir.

We'll continue now with Colette Rivet of the Biotechnology Human Resource Council.

Welcome, and proceed.

[Colette Rivet, Executive Director, Biotechnology Human Resource Council]

Thank you very much.

Good morning. Bonjour.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. My name is Colette Rivet and I'm the executive director of the Biotechnology Human Resource Council.

Biotechnology is comprised of such technologies as cell and tissue culture and gene and RNA vectors, DNA and RNA applications, and nano-biotechnology. It involves such subsectors as human health, agriculture, natural resources, environment, and bioenergy. It encompasses such areas as life sciences, medical devices, and pharmaceuticals.

In a 2005 report, the Conference Board of Canada stated:

Canada needs to act quickly in order to capitalize on biotechnology. We are beyond the point of discussing whether or not Canada should embrace biotechnology as a technology platform for growth. It would be like discussing whether or not we should embrace electricity or the Internet. It is no longer a matter of if we should establish a biotechnology platform, but how we will establish it.

The full achievement of the potential benefits of biotechnology depends on the industry's ability to manage its human resource challenges. A more strategic and national approach to the human resource challenges facing the industry is critical to ensure long-term growth and sustainability.

In addition to driving demands in human health in the other subsectors, current trends driving demand for bio-products include concerns for the environment, greenhouse gas reductions, and the cost and availability of petroleum. New products promise to deliver added value at the farm gate, while at the same time providing products that lessen the impact on our environment. Agriculture and forestry will form the basis for the creation of a new industry based on a renewable carbon and a new and prosperous Canada. However, rapid commercial and technological progress is stressing the industry's human resources capacity. Overall, Canadian-based biotechnology companies have global niche opportunities, but at the same time these firms face unique business challenges because they are highly regulated, research and development intensive, and many have long product development times with high risks of product failure. Most are small enterprises, and many of those have uncertain futures because of limited access to financing.

As a result of this limited long-term financing and minimal staff per company, there has been little focus and funds available for human resources and skills issues. In short, the competitive, international, and rapidly changing nature of this industry is resulting in a demand for a wide variety of skills. This shortage of qualified people is impacting the growth of Canadian biotechnology and its competitiveness. This sector is now only beginning to fully grasp how acute the lack of scientific and management people with the competency levels needed in the biotechnology sector really is. This change in thinking includes venture capitalists and junior scientists realizing that they need to understand how the biotechnology industry is different from the industries they're used to dealing with.

The many players and stakeholders in the Canadian biotechnology industry vary in size, location, the subsector in which they operate, and stage of development, while sharing the specific competencies required.

The Biotechnology Human Resource Council's objective is to ensure that qualified, skilled, and experienced people are available to fill the jobs in the industry and can contribute to the development of a more competitive sector and clusters. As a non-profit and national organization representative of the biotechnology industry, it works with companies, researchers, educators, governments, and employees to meet this goal. In response to the committee's questions related to ensuring that our citizens have the right skills for the benefit of employees and employers, we recommend a multi-disciplinary, multi-sectoral approach to education led by industry that would provide the ability to remain flexible in a rapidly evolving environment as related to the rate of scientific advancement globally and both the emergence of new technologies and convergence of existing technology.

We recommend an integrated system ensuring that individuals do not have to repeat learning when moving from institution or province and territory, and allowing Canadians to clearly determine their career paths.

We recommend a recognized national confirmation system for achieved competencies, including competency assessments and recognition processes, ensuring workforce mobility and industry buy-in.

The federal government's investments could include taking initiatives that will bring the post-secondary education and training systems more in line with the needs of industry; support for sector councils that bring together all the stakeholders to identify and implement industry-driven labour market solutions in a focused and organized manner sector by sector; work experience initiatives in partnership with industry and sector councils for new immigrants so they can integrate into the Canadian economy as soon as possible after arrival; and facilitate the assessment and recognition of foreign credentials and competencies through industry and sector council partnerships.

The federal government already has had a clear role through their support of sector councils since the late 1980s with the creation of the program by the Conservatives, and ongoing by the Liberals and Conservatives again, as well as the NDP in Manitoba and the Parti Québécois and the Liberals in Quebec. We would support a further stepped-up partnership approach between the federal government and the sector councils.

Thank you very much for your time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you very much, madam.

We'll continue with Odyssey Showcase, Deborah Davis. Welcome, and please proceed.

[Deborah Davis, Executive Director, Odyssey Showcase]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In the words of Ringo Starr, “Got to pay your dues if you wanna sing the blues, and you know it don't come easy”. I have paid my dues and sung the blues, and I can tell you that obtaining money from the federal government “don't come easy”.

I'm here today to make you aware of a production that can add to the attraction of Canada as it competes in the global marketplace, because it is important that the federal government recognize unique and innovative cultural projects that can give Canada that extra branding edge in the global market.

The fast-paced, 90-minute show entitled A Musical Taste of Our Canadian Heritage/Notre Héritage Canadien, Une Odyssée Musicale presents the history of music in Canada. More than 50 performers showcase our Canadian musical heritage from the first people to the last 100 years of pop and rock, including Canada's contribution to film, television, and the world stage in a unique bilingual and multilingual presentation.

We have developed close working relationships with many organizations, including aboriginal cultural groups, the RCMP, Canadian universities, dance troupes, the Musicians' Association, school boards, and tourist organizations, and we have attracted funding from the private sector, the provincial government, and more than 10,000 student ticket sales.

I would like to see the federal government appreciate what this show has accomplished and understand the reality, frustration, and difficulty many small arts organizations experience in dealing with the federal bureaucracy.

In September 2005, Odyssey Showcase presented three performances, two school shows, and one public showcase at Centrepoint Theatre in Ottawa. The public showcase, made possible with funding from TD Canada Trust, the Ontario Trillium Foundation, and local sponsors, and the reception that followed were primarily intended to attract additional funding and interest in the show and Odyssey Showcase, especially from the federal government. The show was attended by hundreds of invited guests, including former Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Joe Clark, one federal minister, one senator, many diplomats, and numerous other dignitaries, along with representatives from the hospitality, travel, and tourism industries. To our knowledge, not one federal government official attended, although great efforts were made to attract them to the showcase.

Over the years, despite encouragement from federal officials to apply for funding, our applications were rejected from the granting process because the project fell between the cracks or was considered too mainstream. We have two sold-out shows scheduled for May 2007 and a waiting list of 800 students for an additional show if more funding can be found.

We've also received requests from a number of public and private schools in the Montreal region to put on our show in 2008 in order to stimulate interest in Canada's history. Presenting the show at international fairs or the 2010 Winter Olympic Games in Vancouver would be an ideal opportunity for the entire world to get to know Canada better. The Cirque du Soleil had a similar start and has achieved its success thanks to the vision of certain representatives of the Quebec government.

My appearance today is made in the hope that in some small way I can help get the message across that something has to be done to make it possible for projects such as ours to be viewed with a greater federal interest, to say nothing of funding support.

If I may have just half a minute more, permit me to add that I think it is noteworthy that I am appearing during Citizenship Week, as the show is clearly related to important aspects of what it means to share in Canada's culture and heritage.

If anyone would like the opportunity to meet with me to view a DVD about the production or to find out more about the production, I can be reached by logging on to www.cmod.ca.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to appear today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you very much, Deborah.

We'll continue with Luc Fournier from the Canadian Festivals Coalition. Welcome back, and proceed.

[Luc Fournier, Spokesperson, Canadian Festivals Coalition]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My presentation will be in French. It's easier for me.

I would like to talk to you about the Canadian Festivals Coalition, which I represent. In fact, there are four representatives, one each for the Atlantic Provinces, Ontario, the Western Provinces and Quebec, in the last case myself.

We are currently concerned about the entire dynamic of funding for festivals in Canada as a result of two hard blows we've received in the past five years. The first is the complete loss of sponsorship from the tobacco companies under a federal act passed prohibiting the practice. I don't want to reopen the debate on tobacco. That's not the issue. The fact is that that act alone represents a loss of between $50 and $100 million for the Canadian sponsorship industry.

The second factor I want to emphasize is the federal government's sponsorship program, which was ultimately called the sponsorship scandal. I'm talking more about the agency scandal. The problem wasn't what the events received, but rather the intermediary between the government and the events, including the festivals. They've always spent the money very well. In this case, we're talking about a loss of $50 million a year.

We're asking you to listen to us carefully. My three colleagues from the other regions of Canada and I would simply like to go back to a program entailing standards and including basic criteria for events development, so that we can continue the economic development work we are doing in all regions of Canada.

You should know that there are major festivals in all ridings and all regions and that those events contribute to the economic and social development of those areas. To do this, we ask that these amounts — and we're not talking about new money here — be paid to us once again so that we can support between 600 and 800 festivals in Canada. I prefer not to use the word “event”. What happened 15 minutes ago could be called an event. We're not talking about that kind of event, but about festivals.

Our industry is being asked to participate closely in the tourist development of all our communities in the regions, but curiously the tourist promotion that is being done through the festivals doesn't benefit the festivals themselves. Only tickets bring in money. The rest of the money from those attending the festivals goes to hotels, restaurants, transportation companies, food services and souvenir retailers. All orders of government are asking us to take part in tourist development, but that doesn't help us.

We're requesting financial support that will generate economic impact. Every dollar invested by the federal government in events returns $8 to its coffers, not in the form of economic development, but in the form of taxes. Our request represents between 600 and 800 festivals, a contribution of $50 million a year. We are ready to review the criteria with all parties concerned. We are already prepared to file a concrete proposal. You may examine that in the summary that our group sent you a few days ago.

I'll close my presentation by telling you that this is a real cry from the heart. Our industry has suffered major losses, and that's the case everywhere, not solely in Quebec.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Monsieur, you have a minute remaining.

[Luc Fournier]

No, it's okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Okay, pas de problème.

We continue with the Canadian Foundation for Economic Education, Gary Rabbior.

[Gary Rabbior, President, Canadian Foundation for Economic Education]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you here today on behalf of the Canadian Foundation for Economic Education, or CFEE, as we are more affectionately known.

More importantly, I am pleased to have the opportunity to represent the interests of the millions of Canadians who struggle today to build a successful economic future. More Canadians than any of us would care to imagine lack both confidence and competence as they face their daily economic and financial choices and challenges. CFEE is a federally chartered, non-profit, non-partisan organization, and our goal is to help improve economic and financial literacy so that more Canadians have the capacity and the capability to build a successful economic future.

Our organization was established in 1974. Over the past thirty years we have seen this country absolutely explode with economic opportunity, but unfortunately not for all. We've seen how those who are equipped with the knowledge and skills to identify opportunity and act on it do extraordinarily well, some achieving significant wealth. But we have also seen how many other Canadians experience the stress, anxiety, and hardship that an increasingly competitive and market-driven economy can present. Lacking the same level of economic readiness that others have, these individuals are vulnerable to so many of the harsh economic forces and realities that can sweep over those who are not prepared or who are ill-prepared. We've seen the consequences of stress and ignorance through the signs of tremendous growth in cheque-cashing and payday loan operations.

And wouldn't it be wonderful if the challenge of trying to regulate these operations were partnered with declining demand? If you are like most Canadians, when you reflect upon your own economic and financial learning, you would probably agree that your preparation for economic life was less than ideal. I'm sorry to say that for today's youth, things haven't changed very much.

This means that the challenge we currently face, trying to help many in our adult population who are ill-equipped and unprepared for economic and financial decisions, may only get worse. We know that some groups within our society are more vulnerable to economic challenge and hardship than others and need particular attention—groups such as aboriginal and first nations Canadians, newcomers, past immigrants, and the elderly, who are particularly vulnerable to frauds and scams as they aim to find ways to maximize returns on their investments in a low-interest-rate world.

Some would argue that there is a more urgent need: that of basic literacy and numeracy. I would refer those who do so argue to the work that has been done in the United States, where some of the most successful programs, with the most significant impact on literacy and numeracy, have focused first and foremost on economic and financial literacy. Why? It's because to learn effectively learners need to be motivated, and they have to want to learn.

Many who are illiterate will not step up to proclaim that they need to learn. Indeed, that is what represents so many problems for literacy programs: people will not self-identify, since they don't want it to be known that they cannot read. Consider the now famous example of Jacques Demers, who did all he could to hide his inability.

If we want to address the challenges of basic literacy and numeracy, I propose to you that a key may well lie in the efforts to improve economic and financial literacy at the same time. People usually have little hesitation in acknowledging that they need help in this area, since almost anyone could be sitting in the seat beside them—a real estate agent, an engineer, a taxi driver, and so on. There seems to be no shame in admitting that one needs help in handling and managing financial and economic matters in one's life. Unfortunately, that is a sign of how pervasive the problem is.

I therefore suggest to you that there is not only an urgent need to address the challenge of economic and financial literacy, but that efforts designed to do so could at the same time make a significant contribution to improving basic literacy and numeracy skills. In the brief we have prepared for your consideration we have presented an action plan to address the problem we face in this country with economic and financial literacy.

One of the roadblocks we have faced historically, even among those concerned about the problem, is the question of what we mean by it. To try to overcome this barrier, we organized a series of forums across Canada and brought together people from all walks of life. We asked them one simple question: what do you think Canadians need to know?

I have brought with me today copies of a document entitled “Canadian Economic and Financial Capabilities Guideline”, which represents the consensus of those who've represented business, labour, government, education, social, and community agencies, and many others. We hope this helps us to overcome the historic barrier and articulates what we mean by economic and financial literacy.

However, even with that barrier overcome, a major obstacle remains, and that is the will in Canada to do something about this issue. We're willing to do our part, but to make a meaningful difference, we need to make a meaningful investment. We need the influence and resources of our federal government. We need the federal government to assign priority to this issue and put the resources behind a national, coherent, strategic initiative to help the many Canadians who want to succeed, are working hard, but are encumbered by a lack of knowledge and skills that puts them in a position of such disadvantage to others.

We hope you will agree, assign priority to this issue, assign resources to a strategic effort to address this issue, and help Canada and Canadians to address this challenge.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you for your presentation, sir.

We'll continue with Chuck Loewen, who's here on behalf of the Association of Canadian Airport Duty-Free Operators.

Welcome, sir, and over to you.

[Chuck Loewen, President, Frontier Duty Free Association, Association of Canadian Airport Duty-Free Operators]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. It's a pleasure to be with you today on behalf of the Canadian duty-free retail industry. The representatives of our industry before you today represent all land and airport duty-free retail outlets in Canada as well as selected land and airport outlets in the U.S.A.

In Canada alone we employ approximately 3,000 Canadians. On top of that, Mr. Chair, close to 40% of products sold in our stores are of Canadian origin. Our sales last year were just $349 million; however, in 2000 our sales combined were over $375 million. This represents a loss of 17% for land outlets and 6% overall.

Many events have influenced this drastic trend. Some have been beyond the control of government, but others are a direct consequence of a Canadian government decision.

Our business depends on tourism. Our sales have been affected, as you probably well know, by September 11, SARS, the falling U.S. dollar, the war in Iraq, longer lines at the U.S. border, a decision to require passports by 2007--in the minds of many, this has already taken effect--and of course the recent ban on liquids on airplanes. While we do not hold the government accountable for these events, we will need your help if we are to overcome these challenges.

Our sales have been affected by actions taken directly by government as well. We have been recognized by government as being an export industry; however, the government's imposition of an export tax on tobacco, aimed at smugglers back in April 2001, dealt a near-crippling blow to our industry. This particular tax on the sale of duty-free tobacco products was the first of its kind in the world. This tax created numerous significant negative impacts on our industry. It attacked the basic foundation and nature of our business, which is tax- and duty-free. It eroded the traveller's confidence: “Why do I pay tax on tax-free products?” It reduced our strategic advantage. It reduced penetration to the shops. It affected substantially our ability to pay rents to various authorities, and it reduced sales and increased costs.

Secondly, the announcement of the recent cancellation of the visitor rebate program dealt another stinging blow. The GST/HST visitor rebate program, although modest by international standards, contributes to Canada's competitiveness as a destination. All other countries we compete with provide rebate programs to visitors, and removing the GST rebate program will inflate our pricing in foreign markets by 6%. Tourism cannot afford the added loss of competitiveness that the elimination of the GST/HST visitor rebate program will entail.

As a result of these many challenges, the industry has already seen erosion in sales of some $26 million from 2000-2005 and is forecasting a further decrease of 10%, or $35 million, for 2006 alone. Mr. Chair, that represents a significant amount of Canadian product and many Canadian jobs.

Government and industry working in concert can, I am confident, work through these issues. As you may know, in its report entitled “Borderline Insecure”, the Senate committee on national defence last year recommended a review of allowances to bring our Canadian program more into line with those of Mexico and the United States. We fully support this and applaud the committee's recommendations.

Meanwhile, our industry also continues to invest to keep up with the global market in which we compete. We bring new programs and have added new stores. We've reinvested capital for store improvements. We continue to generate employment and pay corporate taxes, and in the last five years we have paid in excess of $150 million in export taxes on tobacco--this represents almost 10% of our sales.

There are solutions to these problems. Our industry is currently working with Finance toward solutions to the tobacco excise tax problem, and we are seeking your support to find solutions to this issue that may be dealt with in the next budget.

We are also looking to you and all of government to review and speedily rescind the proposal to eliminate the visitor rebate program or look at alternate solutions, and we encourage the government to take action on the Senate report recommendations regarding allowances, which were favourably viewed by this committee last year.

Further detail and more specific recommendations are presented in the package you have received.

Each of these measures will positively impact the Canadian economy and help to ensure a stable, long-term future for our industry.

Once again, Mr. Chair, on behalf of a duty-free industry in distress, our workers, and the border communities we live in, we want to express our appreciation for being invited here today, and we look forward to your help.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you very much, sir.

We continue with Joyce Gordon now, on behalf of the Parkinson Society of Canada, and she will conclude our presentations.

Welcome.

[Joyce Gordon, Executive Director, Parkinson Society Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members, on behalf of Parkinson Society Canada and people living with Parkinson's, for the opportunity to present today.

Parkinson Society Canada is a national, not-for-profit, volunteer-based organization with its 12 regional partners and over 200 chapters and support groups across Canada. Our purpose is to ease the burden and find a cure for people living with Parkinson's. We are the national voice for people living with Parkinson's in Canada.

Over 100,000 Canadians have Parkinson's today. Parkinson's is among the most prevalent of neurological disorders. It is a chronic, progressive neurological disease leading to the degeneration of nerve cells in the brain. Parkinson's is also associated with a substantial burden of illness and cost to society.

For those not familiar with Parkinson's, its progression varies from person to person, and for most individuals, this takes place over many decades. Some people suffer uncontrollable shaking, loss of balance, loss of facial expression, slowed motion, slurred or unusually quiet speech. Chewing and swallowing problems are common symptoms of Parkinson's.

I would ask you to try to imagine what your life would be like if you had Parkinson's, if you were not able to ever smile again, talk again, write again, walk, or swallow and enjoy the food that you enjoy today. This is what Parkinson's is like for over 100,000 Canadians who live with this disease every single day.

So far, researchers and clinicians have found no way to slow, stop, or prevent Parkinson's. It is incredible how little we know about this disease at the population level. The number of Canadians with Parkinson's is expected to increase dramatically as our population ages, and so are the costs. This increase in the population of people with Parkinson's may—and I note may, because I'll point out why I'm saying that now—have a large impact on health resources used in communities across Canada.

Unfortunately, little is known about the true picture of Parkinson's in Canada because the data are not tracked, and that's why I said that Parkinson's may have a large impact. Parkinson's is not a disease of the elderly, but it does affect many over 65, and the incidence increases with age. As such, we are staring at a train coming down the track. We just don't know how big it is, when it will get here, or how much damage it will do, or if or when it goes off the rails. Parkinson Society Canada sees an impending crisis and we need your help to stop it.

As a progressive, degenerative disease, the social and economic impact of Parkinson's will increase over time for the individual and society as the Canadian population ages. There is an urgent need for baseline and projected data on the economic and social burdens Parkinson's imposes. Much epidemiological data are missing. Measuring the data gaps will lead to a better understanding of Parkinson's disease and better public policy decisions. This is our challenge.

Parkinson Society Canada is funded primarily through private donations and sponsorships, and we have demonstrated continued commitment and leadership over the years by providing direct funding to Parkinson researchers. We have also worked with Health Canada to develop a social and economic impact document that was published in 2003, which we have left with you. Much of what we know about Parkinson's comes from this document, but it also identified many gaps. It is now three years later, and we want to address the challenge we faced then and still face now.

Parkinson Society Canada has begun to work on this, but we can't do it alone. We have commissioned Dr. Christina Wolfson, at McGill University, to develop an epidemiological framework to determine the best approaches to acquire required data. With an immediate investment of $5 million by the Government of Canada, this work could begin immediately. This funding can take us another step closer to easing the burden for society, communities, and individuals living with Parkinson's and their families. The Government of Canada can demonstrate leadership and effective use of public funds by investing now in gathering essential epidemiological data about Parkinson's disease so that informed national policy decisions can be made based on credible epidemiological data.

The current and future impact of Parkinson's on the Canadian economy cannot be overstated. On behalf of people living with Parkinson's and Parkinson Society Canada, I urge you to consider this request for an immediate investment in a national epidemiology study for Parkinson's. Our Canadian researchers are well known internationally for making contributions. Many researchers believe a cure is as close as ten or fifteen years away, and we want Canada to be at the forefront of Parkinson's research. We would like the Canadian government to be there with us when we find a cure. Wouldn't it be great if a Canadian researcher found a cure for Parkinson's?

I would like to thank you very much for the time today. We hope the result of this investment would be more efficient use of the Canadian health system resources and an increase of quality of life for people living with Parkinson's and their loved ones.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you very much, Ms. Gordon.

Thank you all for your presentations. In spite of interruptions, I think they were admirable.

We'll move now to questions. Mike Savage for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

They were great presentations and I have a lot of questions. I'm not going to get to them all, but first of all, Mr. Loewen, I think you will be glad to know that we do take the cancellation of the rebate program seriously. Yesterday, a motion brought forward by Mr. McCallum passed at this committee to do a study on the cancellation of that program and we intend to follow up. We might even see you again on that. I think that's a good thing.

First of all, Mr. Rabbior, that was very interesting stuff. I wasn't familiar with your organization, but I'm going to become more familiar. I thank you for laying this out so well.

The House today is debating a motion that's been put forward by our party on the cuts that were made in last week's announcement that affected literacy groups across Canada. The government has indicated that it felt those cuts were really to the administrative aspects of literacy programs. I have letters I've received from Literacy Nova Scotia, Nova Scotia Teachers Union, and Community Links back home. I also have a letter from a learner in the Annapolis Valley who is indicating that his ability to get up to speed on literacy and numeracy is going to be impacted by those cuts.

My question to you is this. Does cutting literacy, in whatever form, send a bad signal to all Canadians who are struggling with this issue?

[Gary Rabbior]

In terms of the strategic investment that I think it represents, it is undoubtedly important. What we would observe right now—and we had an opportunity to discuss this in the context of our efforts to address the productivity issue—is that a lot of the efforts within the government tend to be more toward redistributive spending versus longer-term strategic investment in what will effectively affect our productivity performance and the ultimate standard of living that we'll leave as a legacy to our kids.

Learning, literacy development, education, training--to those kinds of investments we don't seem to be currently assigning the same level of urgency as we are to some of the other things, such as health care, that seem to be more of the here and the now for the yuppie generation that tends to carry a lot of the political light of the day. For our kids, we'd better be making that longer-term investment in programs to develop the capacity of our labour force, not only in the literacy area but also in the utilization of the talent of our immigrants, newcomers, and others.

I personally believe it's more strategically sound to make sure those investments are sustained and made in effective areas, doing more assessment on what's working and what isn't, so that we don't eliminate them holus bolus but find out where we can strategically have an impact and concentrate our spending in those areas.

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

Thank you for that, and I thank you for speaking quickly too. That gives me more time.

Mr. Jeffery, again, a very good brief. You only made brief mention of schools when you talked about nutrition. Certainly, when we're talking about making Canadians more nutritionally aware, it starts with kids, it starts with schools, nutrition in schools, the breakfast for learning programs, and things like that, poverty being one of the most serious social determinants of ill health.

I wonder if you have a view on what we should be doing in schools besides meal programs, not only eating healthy but taking out junk foods. The example I'll give is a high school in my area where the principal took out the Coke and the chip machines. They were providing the only real discretionary income the high school had. I think they lost $20,000 a year for school improvements and things like that. Would you agree that we should start with a mandate that no school should be penalized for promoting proper nutrition in the schools?