Finance Committee on Nov. 5th, 2009

[Christine Fitzgerald]

It could be matching. It could be $1 for $2. It depends. We've leveraged $800 million to date. Of that money, about a third is from health charities, NGOs, and so on. A third is from governments, like provincial governments. The other third is from the private sector.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Great. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McCallum]

Thank you very much, Mr. Pacetti.

I want to thank all of you for being with us here this morning, for your presentations to the committee and your responses to our questions. We will certainly take all of your recommendations under consideration when we prepare our report.

We will ask the second panel to come forward. We will suspend for two minutes, bring the second panel forward, and begin as soon as possible. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McCallum]

We have another series of organizations here for our second panel, the last panel of our pre-budget consultations.

First we have Own the Podium 2010, which is obviously very timely with the Olympics. We have the Pallium Foundation of Canada, the Physical Activity Policy Collective, the National Graduate Caucus, the Association of Canadian Airport Duty Free Operators, the Canadian Vintners Association, and the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association. Each of you has five minutes for an opening presentation, and we'll start with Own the Podium, please.

I should say this is our third medal winner at the committee, so a special welcome to Alex Baumann.

[Dr. Roger Jackson, Chief Executive Officer, Own the Podium 2010]

You've got four, Mr. Chairman, because I'm an Olympic champion as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McCallum]

Oh, I'm sorry.

[Dr. Roger Jackson]

But I'm well-decayed, as compared to my compatriot, Alex.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McCallum]

What sport?

[Dr. Roger Jackson]

Alex was a swimmer. I was a rower in three Olympic games.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McCallum]

Great. Congratulations.

[Dr. Roger Jackson]

Thank you.

Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen, for inviting us to appear, and we will be brief. We have submitted quite a thorough document to you, which will contain the detail of our presentation.

I am the chief executive officer of Own the Podium. Alex is the chief technical officer. We have been the leaders of the program over the last four or five years to prepare our athletes, both for the Olympic Winter Games in Vancouver and the summer games in Beijing and London.

The Own the Podium program, as I think you know, is a very special initiative of the Government of Canada, the Vancouver Organizing Committee, the Olympic Committee and Paralympic Committee, and all the winter sports to try to upgrade the quality of our team performance at the Vancouver Games in 2010. It was determined that if we did not do that, the games would not be a success. They wouldn't capture the interest and the pride of all Canadians, and therefore we should do something about it.

So a consortium was formed with those partners I mentioned. We have had funding for five years, up to March 2010. Our dilemma is that following March 2010, 40% of our funding disappears as a result of the organizing committee ceasing operations and all their corporate and provincial government contracts ceasing at that time. So we're here today to express our interest and ask for your support to provide $22 million a year of base funding for the winter sport program so that we might continue the great success we've had to date. The success is very clear. Yesterday in the Toronto Globe and Mail the front page said Canadian athletes will win the total number of medals at the Olympic Games, as expressed by international media.

It's true. We have come from 4th, 5th, and 6th position six years ago to number one position in the world. We had 17 Olympic medals two games ago. We will have somewhere around 29 to 32 or 33 Olympic medals, more than Germany, more than Russia, more than the United States. Other than bragging about that, because that has been the result of our national sport federations responding to the initiatives, the important thing for Alex and me has been the fact that we have begun to revolutionize how we deliver sport in this country, in partnerships with corporations, with provinces, with the federal government, and with the general public, and we do want to keep that momentum going.

Our team will be enormously successful. We have made great progress, but if we don't have continuing funding, what happened when we held the games in Montreal, what happened when we held the games in Calgary, will happen again. Our funding will stop and all our momentum and achievements will disappear, or at least a great majority of them. We will not be able to fund the 16 winter sports we're currently funding. We'll probably have to cut our program to about half that number. We won't be able to continue the science and innovation and technology programs that have given Canadian athletes the best skis, the best bobsleighs, the best suits, the best sports psychology, the best sports medicine support that you would find in any country in the world. We will not be able to access a number of the expensive facilities we have to access for the winter sports to keep our programs going.

So we're here today to request your support. The Government of Canada has been the leading partner of this Own the Podium initiative. Obviously, we wish you to continue to assist us in this endeavour, and we will be very grateful for your support.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McCallum]

Thank you very much for your presentation.

We'll now go to Ms. Baxter, please.

[Sharon Baxter, Executive Director of the Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association, Pallium Foundation of Canada]

Good morning. Thanks for allowing us to come and present to the finance committee today. We'd like to keep our presentation brief and draw your attention to the brief that we submitted. The written brief is submitted for further details.

The brief is a submission between the Pallium Foundation of Canada and the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians, and it is supported by the Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association, of which I'm the executive director.

I'm just going to speak for a minute or so and then turn it over to Dr. Pereira. We wanted to bring your attention to some startling facts.

Last year over 259,000 Canadians died. The Canadian Institute for Health Information for the first time tracked access to hospice palliative care programs in the four western provinces and estimated that, at best, only 35% of Canadians had access to these services.

There are some things we know.

We know that a 35% access to hospice palliative care will not support a healthy population, nor will it support the sustainability of existing health care delivery systems. We know that Canadians need to talk about end-of-life wishes, often referred to as advance care planning, but are not necessarily doing this. We know that the population of Canada is aging, and that by 2020 we'll have 33% more deaths in this country.

Family and friends are accepting greater responsibility in caring for the seriously ill and dying than ever before, under tremendous stress. This could easily become a burden that cripples Canadians' workforce productivity in the years to come.

Our existing delivery systems are stretched. They are not designed to support complex chronic care characterized by longer periods of decline and dying. We urgently need to support more practical solutions so that end-of-life care is integrated into acute care, long-term care, complex continuing care, residential hospice, and home and community networks.

The Quality End-of-Life Care Coalition of Canada, of which we're all members, believes it should be the right of every Canadian to die with dignity, free of pain, surrounded by a loved one, in a setting of their choice.

We really urgently need to better understand quality of life and economic factors when making decisions around settings of care and choices of care. We can do better in this country, and in doing so, we could support healthier communities, a more caring Canada, and a healthier, more competitive Canada.

José.

[Dr. José Pereira, Founding Director, Pallium Foundation of Canada]

Thank you very much. I'm Dr. José Pereira. I'm a palliative care physician and I'm head and professor of palliative care at the University of Ottawa and at the Bruyère Continuing Care facility here in Ottawa.

l would like to speak to the two recommendations in our submitted brief. The first one is that the Government of Canada extend its research investment in palliative and end-of-life care through at least a five-year palliative and end-of-life research innovations fund, in an amount of at least $16 million.

Canada, through Canadian Institutes for Health Research, has just completed a five-year palliative research initiative. We learned a great deal, but we have much more to learn. Where, for example, are the gaps in services and how can we best address these gaps? Why are so many terminally ill people still dying in hospitals rather than at home or in hospices? Why can we reallocate health care resources to improve end-of-life care and reduce hospital costs in some parts of the country but not in others? How are we going to better provide end-of-life care as the population ages? How can we better alleviate the burden of suffering? How can we improve pain and symptom control? How can we take the excellent Canadian research done over the last eight years on dignity-conserving care to the bedside? What would be the impact on persons with disabilities, chronic illnesses, and the frail elderly?

The second recommendation asks for public engagement and engagement of health care professionals. Many doctors, nurses, and other professionals in practice today have not received adequate training in caring for dying persons. For eight years, starting in the west and now with local and national partners throughout Canada, the Pallium project has been building capacity at a primary health care level. Partners from universities, health care service, government, and not-for-profit agencies have extended their time and expertise to develop essential building blocks for quality end-of-life care.

However, we still have a long way to go. Local leaders throughout Canada have been telling us that their local communities can be compassionate communities, but they need more of the tools and resources to build their confidence and their local capacity.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McCallum]

Thank you very much for your presentation.

We will now hear from the Physical Activity Policy Collective.

[Andrea Grantham, Executive Director of Physical and Health Education Canada, Physical Activity Policy Collective]

Thank you. It's great to be back on Parliament Hill.

I had the privilege a couple of years ago to speak to many of you on the issue of childhood obesity. We played a role in the Dr. Kellie Leitch report, “Reaching for the Top”. This report provides important recommendations for improving the health of Canadian children and youth.

For more than 16 years, I've worked with an organization called Physical and Health Education Canada, and I've been working hard at promoting and enabling every child in this country to benefit from quality physical and health education programs. In these times, it's hard to imagine anything more important.

I come here today as part of the physical activity policy collective, a group of organizations and leaders, such as the Canadian Fitness and Lifestyle Research Institute, the Canadian Parks and Recreation Association, and many others. These groups and the people who make them up are committed to ensuring that Canada is a country that values the health of its people, a country that offers all Canadians the opportunity to participate and lead healthy, active lives.

What I'll be speaking about today builds on the recent appearance by ParticipACTION, another organization involved with our group. You have our brief, so I won't read it to you. In simple terms, we're asking you to initiate a $20 million investment to address Canada's physical and health inactivity epidemic.

Today, I'd like to highlight three important considerations to assist you and your officials in drafting your recommendations for the coming budget. Essentially, we're asking the committee to address the Government of Canada's financial role and contribution to promoting a physically active Canada.

The first consideration I'd like to bring to your attention is this: knowing what's the matter is not what's the matter. We have extensive research on the benefits of physical activity and the consequential harm from sedentary lifestyles. We hear this evidence regularly in the media, and the Active Healthy Kids Canada report card reminds us each year of the slow progress we're making in Canada.

The case for the importance of physical activity has been made, yet Canadian physical activity levels continue to decline. More than half of the Canadian population of adults is inactive. Fifty-seven per cent of Canadian children are not active enough for optimal health. In fact, 26% of Canadian children are either overweight or obese. We are one of the top five developed countries in obesity levels.

The second consideration I'd like to bring to your attention is investing in what we know has yet to happen. Considering this evidence that we've heard about, federal government investments in physical inactivity are critical. It just makes sense.

Studies show that increasing physical activity in Canada by just 10% would result in health care savings of about $150 million. That's about $6.15 per capita. Yet only a small fraction of that is invested in promoting physical activity in this country.

Current investment in physical activity initiatives sits at around 36¢ per capita, and this investment comes from a patchwork of funding that is declining every year. There was a time when Canada was a global leader. However, this is no longer the case. Currently, Canada is just resting on its reputation.

The good news is that a commitment has been made across all parties to spend the equivalent of 1% of federal health spending on physical activity in sport. This kind of all-party consensus, while rare, is entirely appropriate given what we know, but we have a long way to go before we can get there.

My final consideration is that returns on the investment fit our challenging times. Leading researchers like Dr. Andrew Pipe, who sends his regrets today, Dr. Mark Tremblay, and Dr. Art Quinney, among many others, tell us that the best way to counteract chronic diseases like diabetes, heart disease, stroke, and cancer is to increase physical activity levels among Canadians.

In a society where sedentary activities have long been predominant at work, home, and play, there has never been a greater need to address this issue. Canadians understand this. A recent study about to be published in the coming weeks reports that 93% of Canadians believe that the government should be doing more to support physical activity and sport programs.

In closing, I ask you, how much more evidence do we need? It is time to begin that investment and get back on track to the 1% commitment. This requires a commitment by the federal government of $20 million to get us on track, leading to $100 million at maturity.

Without this investment, we will not have public education initiatives, initiatives for our aging population, dedicated programs to support low-income families, or after-school initiatives that support increased physical activity while offering alternatives to youth violence. This investment will result in active community programs and services, more productive workplaces, and much more.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today. I ask that you include this important provision in your report.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McCallum]

Thank you for your presentation.

We'll now hear from the National Graduate Caucus.

[Graham Cox, Researcher, Research Branch, National Graduate Caucus]

Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today about graduate student priorities for Budget 2010.

The National Graduate Caucus is Canada's largest graduate students organization, representing more than 70,000 graduate students from more than 30 campuses across the country. We see the investment in graduate students and their research as an essential investment in the future needs of the Canadian economy. Graduate students are the drivers of long-term innovation through their research, and they also go on to become the high-skilled, highly qualified workforce required in the knowledge economy.

There have been modest improvements in graduate student funding in recent federal budgets. However, these increases have still not made up for the cuts to the granting councils that occurred in the 1990s. Also, the latest increases in funding to the Canada graduate scholarships program were geared towards specific areas of private industry, a policy that limits long-term innovation. The short-term increase in the number of scholarships distributed under the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council was also directed only towards business-related degrees. Canada's research community responded negatively, as the move undermined the independence of the council and internationally recognized peer review standards within academia.

This short-sighted research policy only undermines Canada's world-class research community and damages Canada's international reputation. According to the recent studies carried out by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Canada is falling far behind other industrialized countries in the area of private sector research and development in innovation. The use of public tax resources to subsidize private-sector-driven commercialization projects in universities negatively affects incentives for the private sector to invest in in-house research and development.

The policy also reduces the job opportunities for graduate students after they graduate. Public sector funding for university research is essential to reverse this trend. Today, graduate students are also facing increased challenges. Graduate studies have expanded 37% in the last decade as the demand for workers with advanced degrees has grown, with a shift to a more knowledge-based economy. Despite the growth, there has not been an adequate increase in the funding for graduate studies.

This reduces not only the affordability of graduate school but also the quality of research. Graduate students incur increased debt loads during their programs and face a faster rise in tuition fees than undergraduate students. A Statistics Canada report released earlier this year showed that PhD graduates can only look forward to an increase in their pay of an average of $4,000 over that of masters students, even though they have studied, have done research, and have paid tuition fees for an extra five years of university.

Basic curiosity-driven research that graduate students carry out is the foundation for the future economy and it establishes the long-term innovation possibilities for enterprises. The United States, European countries, and growing economies such as China and India have invested much more heavily in university research in response to the global recession. Canada has been ranked by an international panel to have one of the most efficient and effective discovery grants programs in the world in producing innovation and top-tier research. However, investment by the federal government in the councils that fund university research was cut by up to $148 million over three years in the previous budget. Our recommendation, then, is to restore the $148 million to the granting councils and to increase in both proportion and amount that funding to go to basic research by graduate students. We recommend that this money be asymmetrically allocated through the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council to make up for a historical underfunding of these programs.

Our second recommendation has to do with the increase in the number of graduate students who receive direct funding for their studies. Since 2006, the federal government has provided little in the way of upfront grants to graduate students. The 2008 budget increase in the number of graduate scholarships did not reflect enrolment in graduate studies. Only 15% of new scholarships went to graduate students studying social sciences, humanities, and arts, which is where approximately 50% of graduate students study. The 2009 budget continued this trend, with only a $17 million increase of the $88 million invested going to SSHRC and all of that $17 million going to business-related degrees. This excluded well over 90% of graduate students in the social sciences, humanities, and arts. The recommendation is to double the number of Canada graduate scholarships and proportionally distribute those grants according to enrolment.

I'll end my presentation here. I look forward to providing more in-depth information during the question period. Thank you for the opportunity of speaking with you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McCallum]

Thank you very much, Mr. Cox.

We'll go to the Association of Canadian Airport Duty Free Operators.

[Richard Rendeck, Chief Executive Officer of Nuance Group North America, Association of Canadian Airport Duty Free Operators]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members, for the opportunity this morning.

I am Richard Rendeck, CEO of the Nuance Group. I'm here with Myron Keehn today, the director of concessions and development at Edmonton International Airport. We're here today representing a coalition of international airports in our country and duty free operators with respect to advocating an arrivals duty free program consistent with over 50 countries throughout the world.

This is clearly a spreading phenomenon throughout the planet, so now we find ourselves at a competitive disadvantage for our Canadian employees due to cannibalization of our business offshore. I think the government has understood this. We've been here for two years now. Last year, the government put a recommendation in its report for consultation for the budget, so they clearly gave a favourable recommendation for arrivals duty free. We've had those consultations now as well, and we're here today to say thank you for that. We wanted to update the committee on the issue and request that you recommend to the government to include a full implementation in 2010. We've got the ball into the red zone; we're just trying to punch it in.

Really, our point here is that consideration of this program comes at a particularly urgent time, given the economic crisis, the fact that we're a smaller world now, and also the fact that we can't seem to get an international agreement on liquid and gel restrictions, etc. Our business has changed completely, and not for the better, so we're looking for solutions here. With the environment being what it is, I think we present this also as a no-cost stimulus measure for the government. We're not requesting any funding. We're not requesting any assistance. We simply seek a small change in two paragraphs in existing tax law to allow us to recapture some of our business lost to other countries. I think consumers of this country might like it too, but I think you've already determined that.

I'll now hand it over to Myron for a different view.

[Myron Keehn, Director of Concessions, Land and Parking Development, Edmonton International Airport, Association of Canadian Airport Duty Free Operators]

The arrivals duty free concept is strongly supported among stakeholders and other groups. The coalition is made up of the airports in Vancouver, Edmonton, Toronto, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Montreal, and Halifax, on the duty free side, with the three duty free operators in Canada, which are Nuance, Aldeasa, and Aer Rianta. The coalition is focused on educating the provinces, as well as working with the already strong support base we have from retailers, chambers of commerce, and regional and civic tourism authorities.

A good quote one of our supporters gave us is that they believe an arrivals duty free program would keep Canada competitive with other foreign jurisdictions in a time of rapid change in the travel retail market.

[Richard Rendeck]

Let's get some of the numbers--what they mean.

When I say it's no cost, it's actually probably revenue-positive to the nation. We figure we're talking around 400 new jobs across Canada to repatriate and grow our sales; $13 million in wages—these are immediate impacts—and $4 million in federal taxes annually; enhancing our international competitiveness, because certainly in our arena it's coming down; supporting Canada's gateway policy; probably increased customer satisfaction; some environmental benefits on loads that go onto aircraft that leave a trail. I could go on and on, but I think clearly there's a number of benefits to be had by a policy that costs nothing.

[Myron Keehn]

ADF would not reduce the current federal or provincial tax revenue base, or create additional costs, as Dick has mentioned, so it's a no-cost stimulus policy. It doesn't require government funding, and we complement the goal of this committee to find policies that will stimulate our economy.

Airports have already invested gated opportunities to locate new stores within the international arrival areas and will assume all infrastructure costs. Federal and provincial governments stand to benefit through additional tax revenue that arrivals duty free would bring. It doesn't compete with domestic retailers. In fact, a number of organizations representing domestic economic interests, including the Retail Council of Canada, support the concept of ADF. Introducing ADF would result in positive local economic benefits in these challenging times by spurring economic growth through sales that would otherwise occur abroad.

Implementation of ADF at Canadian airports would not cost the Government of Canada or effect a province a net tax loss on current revenues. A global review shows that ADF does not reduce purchases at domestic retail locations. Rather, ADF entices passengers to purchase goods upon arrival in Canada, as opposed to purchasing abroad. The experience led Australia to expand their arrival duty free program in 2008, and other countries are actively pursuing the same thing. Airports have facilities that are ADF-ready, or could be momentarily.

[Richard Rendeck]

Let me briefly wrap up.

In conclusion, I think our ask here is that we are in the red zone; we want to punch it over. That's our conclusion.

Cynics would say that government can't effect change. I disagree with that completely. I note the H1N1 readiness. Also, the last time I was here, this room was completely different, so clearly change can happen. Our goal is that the government has recognized our efforts all the way along, so we simply want to punch it through.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McCallum]

Thank you for your presentation.

We'll now go to the Canadian Vintners Association.