The Heart and Stroke Foundation is one of Canada's leading health charities, investing some $60 million a year in peer-reviewed health research and stroke research and actively engaging in every community to promote healthy living. It is a proud lead partner in the development of the heart health strategy and action plan for Canada, at the request of Minister Clement.
You have our brief, and I'll be much briefer today. I will begin with how we believe the federal government can help address obesity through tax policy and targeted infrastructure investments. I will finish with our recommendation on how it can better support donor investments in health research.
Mr. Chair, you know from your former leadership of the health committee how serious, daunting, and potentially expensive the obesity epidemic will be if we don't seriously begin to address it now. The mechanisms we're suggesting in our brief for the federal government to help address this epidemic are not new: tax policy and targeted infrastructure funds.
In terms of tax policy, the federal government has used this mechanism effectively to promote health in the past. Perhaps most notable has been its use to disincent and reduce smoking in Canada. The government's recent introduction of the children's fitness tax credit is another example. So too is the tax deduction for the purchase of public transit passes. In terms of infrastructure funds, this has been a popular tool by several federal governments to incent provincial and municipal investments where gaps have been identified and needs have to be dealt with.
We are asking the federal government to once again use tax policies and infrastructure investments to enhance health. Let me be a bit more specific. For the overweight and obese, which includes some 60% of us, tax policy provides an incentive to support needed behavioural change. Research has demonstrated that foods that are health-promoting are considerably more expensive than low-nutrient, energy-dense foods. As one step, we would suggest that the government revisit the current application of the GST on foods to ensure that it is applied in a manner that facilitates healthy eating. While overall GST reductions are helpful, more selective reductions will have a greater health impact.
Improving access to physical activities, such as equipment, can help encourage Canadians to engage in physical activity more. Tax policy can provide an economic incentive for consumers to make the healthier choice. It's particularly relevant to Canadians of lower socio-economic status, where affordability is more of a barrier. To that end we recommend that the government improve the children's fitness tax credit for children and youth in the various ways that we have outlined in our brief, and that it remove the GST from products that promote physical activity, such as exercise equipment, bikes, skates, hockey gear, and other sports equipment.
Another important measure of addressing obesity is to create a dedicated infrastructure fund that can facilitate physical activity. Numerous studies have found a relationship between the design of our communities and obesity levels. Specifically, these studies have demonstrated that individuals living in communities that are more walkable, more easy to cycle in, are more likely to reach recommended levels of physical activity, and thus are more likely to be at a healthy weight.
The federal government has a role to play in facilitating the development of this type of health-promoting infrastructure, such as sidewalks, bike lanes, parks, and recreation centres. We thus urge the federal government, following along the report of the Standing Committee on Health on healthy weights for healthy kids, to dedicate a specific percentage of existing infrastructure funds--not new funds, existing infrastructure funds--towards the development of infrastructure that promotes physical activity. Our brief outlines those funds that could be targeted.
Tax policies and infrastructure are obviously not the only ways in which we can address obesity, but they are important when combined with other measures.
Finally, let me turn to how the federal government can better support donor investments in health research. About five years ago, the federal government recognized its responsibility to fund the indirect as well as the direct costs of research. The federal government's indirect costs of research program was the new mechanism chosen to meet this responsibility and fill this need. However, this program does not cover health charity funded research, even though by health charities' investing to the tune of some $200 million a year we are meeting a need and filling a gap that the federal government would otherwise need to fill. This is counterproductive to the program.
I should add, Mr. Chair, that I'm not here to ask for that money for the health charities. I'm here to ask that the money be given to the 13 Canadian universities and their affiliated teaching hospitals to which 80% to 90% of our money goes.
Canadian donors cannot be expected to pay these costs. They already contribute to university overheads through their taxes. This is a government role. Currently the program means that charities are at risk of being double taxed.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for this opportunity.