Finance Committee on Oct. 18th, 2017

[Raj Grewal, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Thank you, sir.

My next question is for Corinne.

You spoke about about childhood obesity. I think everybody on the panel agrees that more should be done to target childhood obesity, but you had a specific emphasis on the sugar tax.

I've studied this issue more than most MPs. I used to work at Pepsi as my first job after I graduated as a financial analyst. I get more passionate than most people on why I don't believe a sugar tax is a good idea, but I'd like to have a conversation on it with you.

The WHO and the Heart and Stroke Foundation recommend a sugar tax. They believe if we have a sugar tax we will consume less sugar, which will add more benefits to our society: people will live longer, will be healthier, etc.

However, wherever there's been a sugar tax implemented, there hasn't been a direct correlation in a reduction in childhood obesity. In Canada, there's actually a reduction in the consumption of sugary drinks already without a sugar tax and then we don't even get to the notional argument, which I brought up with the Heart and Stroke Foundation last year when they testified in front of this committee recommending a sugar tax, which is that nobody has done an economic analysis on the job losses that would be created with the implementation of a sugar tax. The economic reality is that if you tax a Coca-Cola or a Pepsi, they're going to have to meet their bottom line somehow, and that generally means a reduction in labour force.

I'm also biased because Coca-Cola's biggest plant is in Brampton, and this would have a negative impact on their business.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Raj, we have to give Corinne time to challenge your argument.

[Raj Grewal, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Yes, absolutely. That's the best part of democracy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Go ahead, Corinne

[Corinne Voyer]

First, it's not a sugar tax. It's a sugary drink tax. We're only focused on sugary drinks.

The other thing about the reduction of obesity, for sure it's a new measure, so it's too soon to know the impact on obesity, but sugary drinks are linked to obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and tooth decay. This is proven by science. We know that taxation in other countries reduces the consumption, so we are expecting a diminution of obesity for sure. But obesity is very complex. It has many causes so we have to measure all the variables around it.

That's my point on obesity, but we are expecting some changes for sure if the reductions are reduced.

About the reduction of sugary drinks, it's not sugary drinks; it's soda pop. Yes, Pepsi and Coca-Cola reduced their sale of soda pop, but they've been replaced by energy drinks, vitamin waters, iced tea, café aromatisé , fruit cocktails. An explosion of a variety of products on the market now have replaced these traditional drinks.

The other thing about the job loss, let me be clear about the lack of productivity also linked to obesity and cardiovascular disease and cancer and other problems that society has right now. This all has a cost, and the cost is much higher and bigger than the job loss. This hasn't quite been demonstrated. Some work has been done in Quebec by Yann Le Bodo. He's a researcher who did some work on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Quickly, Clara.

[Clara Couturier, Research Analyst, Public Policy, Coalition québécoise sur la problématique du poids]

It's important to understand that industries in Canada enjoy a number of benefits, particularly in terms of production and distribution. These are companies that transport significant volumes of weight, which costs money. They also have access to drinking water at a very low cost. As Ms. Voyer said so well, it hasn't been shown that a tax has a direct impact on jobs, but several other factors do.

There is drinking water here, too. They pump it here and give it back to us in a format that contains colour, fizz and added sugar. This also has an impact on the environment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll have to leave it there.

Mr. Albas will be the last questioner. Ms. O'Connell is willing to give up her time because we're over time.

Mr. Albas.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to start with Elizabeth from Ovarian Cancer Canada.

First, I want to commend your organization. You have some of the most committed volunteers. Cathy Farrow and her team in Kelowna have been tremendous, not just in raising awareness and raising funds, but also in giving grieving families a positive outlet for them to show their concern and to raise awareness themselves. Thank you for that.

[Elisabeth Baugh]

Thank you.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

I would like to ask a little more about your proposal.

To many people in my riding, $10 million is a lot of money. You've pointed out 50% of all women diagnosed today will no longer be with us within five years, so there's a tremendous opportunity there. Can you explain what that $10 million will go toward so this committee can thoughtfully consider your proposal?

[Elisabeth Baugh]

Thank you so much for that question.

It does sound like a number we might have pulled out of a hat, but that's not so. There have recently been a number of international assessments on where the greatest gaps lie and how the unmet needs could quickly be addressed. Three areas have been identified and we've had those areas reviewed and validated by our partners, the Canadian Ovarian Cancer Research Consortium. We would create a national steering committee, of course, and the money would be managed with partners CIHR, 3CTN, CRS, etc. The money would be focused on research in three specific areas.

The first is novel treatment strategies, $2.25 million. I mentioned that with most patients ovarian cancer recurs, and this is where treatment falls off very very quickly. Interestingly, there have been a number of research teams in Canada that have been very successful in identifying novel treatments, but there's a gap between validating them and getting them to clinical trials. That would be the first area, novel treatment strategies.

Second, another $2.25 million would go to research into better experimental treatment models. I mentioned that funding for models overall is scarce, and it's very important because the models allow us to test the safety and efficacy of the treatment. Creating and improving experimental models can help uncover more information about the disease, which frankly, until even 10 years ago, was poorly understood. We know much more about it now. It is not one disease. It's many diseases with subtypes. It's very important that we have better models to bridge the gap between the discovery and the validation of new treatments.

Finally, the bigger piece, $5.5 million, would go to personalized medicine, the right medicine for the right person. We know that many of these treatments will not work in some of the subtypes of ovarian cancer, and yet women will receive treatment that doesn't make them feel better, doesn't stop their cancer, and costs the economy an enormous amount of burden in health. Treatments that are targeted for their cancer at the right time would really help change the outcome of this disease.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Ms. Huot.

[Céline Huot]

Yes, I just wanted to add that I talked about the superclusters, and of the 10 superclusters that were chosen by the government none was on life sciences or health, and that's something that is very important. That's why we said that we can't just ignore the project that was presented, because there are lots of projects, on personalized medicine and everything, and that's why we need the government in the next budget to show amounts for those projects, which are very important to an aging population.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madame Voyer, I certainly appreciate your presentation today. Obviously we are concerned about childhood obesity. It's really matching and diagnosing the problem and then asking what the best solution is.

You mentioned Mexico. According to the National Institute of Public Health of Mexico, which keenly supports this tax, annual sales of sugary drinks averaged 18.2 million litres between 2007 and 2013. In 2014 this rose to 19.4 million litres and then it rose again in 2015 to 19.5 million.

When you factor in and adjust for population growth, you have, from 2007 to 2013, 160 litres per capita, in Mexico. In 2014, when it was adopted, the per capita rate went to 162 litres, and even with adjustments for population in 2015 as well, it was 161 litres.

Obviously, the evidence does suggest that work is needed here. How do you explain that where this has been enacted it has not accomplished its purpose of reducing consumption?

[Corinne Voyer]

Sorry, my English is not.... You're all mixed up with the numbers. But the numbers that I have for Mexico from the health is that after the first year of implementation there was a reduction of 6% in the consumption of sugary drinks by the whole population. During the holidays, Christmas and other specific periods, the reduction went almost to 12%, and in the communautés défavorisées, the poor population, they reduced the consumption by 9% during the year.

What we know about obesity during that period...the taxation was implemented in 2014 and the data that we have on obesity are from 2012 to 2016.

As for the numbers, we will need another measurement period to determine the impact on obesity, because the tax was implemented in the middle of a four-year period, after two years.

Specifically, consumption has really decreased in Mexico. It's very well explained in our brief. We even have a fact sheet that will give you more information about the data for Mexico.

Obesity will be measured, but there is always a delay, as in the case of the Canadian community surveys. In 2018, we will have access to the 2016 Canadian data, in 2020 we will have the 2018 data, and so on. So we are at the same level as Mexico.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

It wouldn't be the first time we had a difference in terms of numbers.

Did you have a quick supplementary?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Those are the National Institute of Public Health of Mexico's numbers. When you factor in a per capita approach, Mexican people are drinking actually more than they did before. My suggestion is to maybe look at those numbers because these are the questions that any government has to responsibly answer.

Mr. Grewal has mentioned his own riding. Particularly now, when we are very sensitive to more production being established in the United States, I think we should always bear in mind that if there are going to be economic consequences, we should know what they are. We should also make sure, before we do anything, that we know it's the right vehicle. Personally, I think food labelling, I think further education.... We have one of the most educated populations in the world. I think there's a lot that needs to be done there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll let Clara in, and then Mr. Bouchard has a final point.

[Clara Couturier]

Once again, he understands that if sales figures increase, it means that if there had been no taxation, the sales figures might be higher. It is important to consider all the factors since the implementation of the tax in 2014. After that, we can see if there is an impact. If there had been no tax, the sales might be even higher. What Corinne said was going in this direction.

[Corinne Voyer]

I would like to add that the recent data from the Mexican National Institute of Public Health showed a decrease in obesity. We could have a battle of figures on this. In fact, I had access to the recent health data, and it isn't the same thing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll have to agree to disagree on the data at the moment.

Mr. Bouchard.

[Frédéric Bouchard]

I'm the last obstacle between you and your lunch, so I'll make this short.

A common denominator of a lot of these discussions is that we can spend taxpayer dollars better with better knowledge. That knowledge doesn't come from digging a hole. It comes from smart people doing important work, and they need your support. It's done in various places. If we do this right, we can better spend every single dollar that the government has the responsibility of. That demands more people doing better research.

I want to thank all of you. Frankly, just hearing a battle of numbers—and reducing it to a battle of numbers, I think, does it a disservice—shows that we don't know everything and that we still need to investigate these things because they impact lives. I was happy to hear people invoking the NIH, invoking other studies. It's not a reproach on the argument. I was happy to hear people using research to make better-informed decisions. If we did that more often, I think we would spend our taxpayer dollars better.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Ms. Guimont, I think you had one final comment.

[Chantal Guimont]

Yes. I really appreciate the work, the studies, and the information.

Our recommendations in another set of the world are very documented. They are pragmatic. They would make a huge difference. All the evidence is there. I invite you to look into them and to call on me if you have any other questions, but these are our clear recommendations with proven results.