Evidence of meeting #49 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was indigenous.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Thank you very much, Mr. Scott.
We'll turn to the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada and Mr. Arango.
Did you have anything to add, Brian?
5:55 p.m.
Brian McKenna Veterans Council Representative, Equitas Disabled Soldiers Funding Society
Yes.
5:55 p.m.
Veterans Council Representative, Equitas Disabled Soldiers Funding Society
How much time do I have, Chair?
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
5:55 p.m.
Veterans Council Representative, Equitas Disabled Soldiers Funding Society
I can. I'll cut down to halfway, because that's where the good stuff is.
5:55 p.m.
Veterans Council Representative, Equitas Disabled Soldiers Funding Society
Okay, I'll skip the salutation, and I'll go right here.
Don't try to repackage already failing policy as new policy. Don't try another series of expensive half measures. We've already seen the Department of Veterans Affairs try to sell their plan to us at the stakeholders meeting, but we aren't naive, we do talk to each other, and we have communication coast to coast. When you deny my friend in P.E.I., I hear about it in Vancouver. We know what's going on with each other.
While some benefits are being delivered, the constant reality of a negative opinion on a reassessment essentially requires veterans to remain sick to receive care. It disincentivizes recovery. It is the opposite of what's claimed, which is a wellness model.
As soldiers, we weren't perfect, but we always saw missions through to the end. There is no break until it's done. You taught us that, the Government of Canada taught us that, that we needed to do that for you to accomplish the security tasks of the nation. Now I move forward with that same tenacity to make sure my brothers in uniform are cared for, to make sure that they can count on the oath of allegiance that they swore to having meaning from the nation they swore it to.
We're not going away until this unjust compensation is fixed. I do believe you will fix it. I also believe the day will come when a financial assessment will be done, and the result will, of course, be the realization that by far the cheapest course of action would have been to fix this years ago, which of course you can't do.
Please fix it now. The finance department should endeavour to produce the funding in 2017's budget to once and for all fix the discrepancy in care and compensation between the different benefit schemes for Canada's wounded sons and daughters.
I'll close with this point.
This is Canada, and we do big things here. There is currently a robotic arm with a maple leaf on it. It is moving hand over hand in space, and it assembled the space station. Insulin was developed here. More recently, in two months you found the funding, the planning capacity, and the ability to conduct a mass migration of 25,000 war-ravaged refugees to this country—I support you in that, by the way—and that effort had the support of the Canadian Forces. You used Canadian service personnel to do that.
You must be able to see the cruel irony, then, when we suggest that it takes 11 years of consultation to provide those same Canadian Forces members with the benefits originally promised to them when you've already done it before, and you continue to do it now with our brothers injured pre-2006. For it to have taken this long, let alone continue, means the Department of Veterans Affairs has had to actively work at not finding the proper solution. That needs to end.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Thank you, Mr. McKenna.
Last, we have the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, and Mr. Arango.
5:55 p.m.
Manuel Arango Director, Health Policy and Advocacy, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members.
The Heart and Stroke Foundation is a national volunteer-based charity led and supported by more than 125,000 volunteers across the country and close to two million donors. We have a presence in every community across the country from coast to coast to coast. The aim of the foundation is to create healthy lives free of heart disease and stroke.
Despite an impressive 75% reduction in the death rate from heart disease and stroke over the last 60 years, every seven minutes someone in Canada still dies from heart disease or stroke. That's more than 66,000 deaths per year. Heart disease and stroke are the leading cause of hospitalizations in Canada. We clearly have much more work to do.
The foundation is seeking to partner with the federal government to do three things.
Number one is to protect Canada's children and others by supporting healthy living initiatives funded through a manufacturer's levy on sugary drinks.
Number two is to invest $10 million to empower indigenous youth through CPR and AED defibrillator training and $5 million to improve indigenous people's capacity to access nutritious food and safe drinking water.
Finally, number three is to invest in science by providing $30 million annually to support heart disease and stroke research in Canada.
To help protect Canadian children, we are recommending that the federal government support healthy living initiatives funded through a manufacturer's levy on sugary drinks. Ideally, the levy should be an excise tax, increased according to the amount of sugar in the drinks; should be robust, achieving a 20% minimum price increase; and should include a broad range of sugary drinks. This includes fruit juices, which have just as much as or more sugar than soda pop.
This is important, because during the time period from 2004 to 2015 in Canada we've seen tremendous increases in the sales of many sugary drinks: a 627% increase in ready-made coffees, a 383% increase in drinkable yogurts, a 4% increase in sports drinks, and a whopping 738% increase in energy drinks. Last year, in 2015, the average Canadian consumed over half a litre of sugary drinks per day. That's almost 200 litres per Canadian in a year.
A federal levy of 5¢ per 100 millilitres on just soda pop alone would raise almost $2 billion annually in revenue. This figure would be much higher if the levy were applied to other sugary drinks. A portion of this new revenue stream could be redirected towards subsidizing healthy living initiatives, such as a national school lunch program, safe drinking water, and safe nutrition for indigenous communities.
There is strong and growing evidence that sugary drink taxation is working. In Mexico, for example, a 10% excise tax on sugary drinks was associated with a reduction as high as 12% in sugary drink purchases, and as high as a 17% reduction amongst low-income people. This can work in Canada too to improve health and raise much-needed revenue.
In Mexico, the imposition of the levy had no impact on Mexico's overall employment rate, no impact on the employment rate in the beverage manufacturing sector, and no impact on employment in commercial stores selling beverages.
A levy is a win-win, raising revenue for much-needed programs for Canadians and improving health by reducing excess consumption of sugary drinks.
Second, in Canada we're facing a health crisis among indigenous peoples. Heart disease rates are two times higher amongst indigenous people when compared with the non-indigenous population, mostly because of inequities. With the leadership of indigenous organizations, the Heart and Stroke Foundation is proposing to empower indigenous youth through a grade 8 AED-CPR training program in indigenous communities. This will provide grade 8 students with a concrete skill and a broader knowledge of heart health, contributing to the development of individual capacity and empowerment. It will contribute to community capacity through the training of local CPR instructors, using a train-the-trainer approach. It would also promote economic sustainability through instructor small business development and would provide defibrillators in those communities that do not have them.
Also, with the leadership of indigenous organizations, Heart and Stroke proposes to improve indigenous food security and access to safe drinking water. This would entail developing greenhouses and new technologies to grow fruits and vegetables in a sustainable manner. It would also support indigenous capacity to help implement the federal government's safe drinking water commitments from Budget 2016.
Lack of access to clean, potable, and affordable drinking water continues to be a challenge for many indigenous communities. It also facilitates the consumption of sugary drinks. We know that sugary drinks are associated with a range of health issues, yet they are affordable, easily accessible, and seen by many as the best option to replace fruits and water, especially in remote and northern communities.
Finally, Canada has been an international leader in heart disease and stroke research. We appreciate the investment in budget 2016 of $5 million over five years for women's heart health research. However, more recently we have not been keeping up in heart disease and stroke research in Canada. Without further increased investments, we will continue to lag, with negative consequences for the health of Canadians. There are five research areas requiring investment: heart failure, indigenous health, stroke and dementia, creating capacity amongst early career researchers, and nutrition.
Canada has not been keeping up with high-impact heart disease and stroke research. Applications to CIHR in all fields of research have increased by 110% in the last decade, but in cardiovascular research they have increased only by 22%. In addition, the number of early career investigators in cardiovascular research decreased by 50% between 2002 and 2010. We need more investment to attract and retain young researchers.
What's the opportunity here? In addition to saving lives and improving Canadians' quality of life, this investment would create high-value jobs. It would also help to attract and retain young researchers in the field. Finally, it would lead to as high as 39% annual return on investment. This investment could be fully recouped in two years.
Mr. Chair and honourable members, thank you for your time.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Thank you, all.
Due to circumstances of time and meetings next door, we'll have to go to two six-minute rounds with each of the parties, and one six-minute round for the NDP, if we could.
My apologies for there being so many witnesses. We thought we had eight. We normally have six. Circumstances led us to that. Everybody has valid points, and we do have your full presentations in our documentation.
We are turning first to Mr. Ouellette, for six minutes.
If you want to give a little of your time to a colleague, you're welcome to do it.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
Robert-Falcon Ouellette Liberal Winnipeg Centre, MB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I really appreciate all your presentations here today.
This is for Dr. Freeland, from Dechinta Bush University.
It's incredible that you had zero dropouts in that period of education that you were offering. Some universities I've worked at have had just a 13% retention rate in some of their programs with indigenous youth.
I was just wondering what barriers indigenous programs in education face with the federal government when trying to create opportunity and innovative programs that are based on an indigenous world view.
6:05 p.m.
Prof. Erin Freeland
I think one of the biggest barriers we face is that we come from a solution that's interdisciplinary. We have mental health work support, elders, and professors all working together, as well as child care. Trying to find funding for this, we are working with up to seven different departments, so we are looking at over 14 different agreements in a year of funding at just one level of government.
We are really trying to work towards comprehensive solutions to funding for innovative ideas. I think this takes a systems change approach, whereby we don't fund things just from a departmental level, but the government as a whole takes leadership over changing education systems for youth. I think that's one of the biggest barriers we face—trying to find funding from all different pockets, instead of the government saying, “Hey, this initiative is working; let's give it funding so that we can build an indigenous institution that's really responsive, that can create policy, and that is scalable across the country.”
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
Robert-Falcon Ouellette Liberal Winnipeg Centre, MB
Thank you very much.
My next question is for the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada.
We see people in indigenous communities literally dying from the unhealthy foods they are forced to eat in this country, because often there aren't a lot of choices. You propose a number of solutions. You are proposing a sugar tax. What impact would that have on traditional foods and what beneficial impact would it have on a community?
October 25th, 2016 / 6:05 p.m.
Director, Health Policy and Advocacy, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
A sugary drink levy could be used, as I mentioned, for a number of initiatives. It could create an indigenous health fund, for example, which could promote traditional foods. Also, as I indicated in my presentation, it could help with greenhouse technologies and other innovative technologies to help with the growth of fruits and vegetables in northern and remote communities. It's very difficult, obviously, to grow those products in those communities.
We also know, from programs such as the food mail program and Nutrition North, that to provide these kinds of improved food in these communities is very difficult and very complex. I think a levy could be used to support nutrition in these communities to great effect.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
Robert-Falcon Ouellette Liberal Winnipeg Centre, MB
Thank you very much. I very much appreciate that.
This is for Brian McKenna and Jim Scott; it's very short.
As a still-serving member of the naval reserves, as a Petty Officer 1st class at HMCS Chippawa, this issue is really close to my heart.
We've had this discussion on this committee about guaranteed annual income. It seems that if we just gave a pension every year to these veterans that they would manage their own affairs and do probably better than if we created a whole plethora of programs and bureaucracy around trying to find out what it is they're doing. Just allow people to create their own lives for themselves.
6:10 p.m.
Veterans Council Representative, Equitas Disabled Soldiers Funding Society
I'll take that one.
I agree with you. One of the things that we've encountered, sir, is that giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to a 21-year-old who may have severe depression or perhaps is missing a limb.... Think back to when you were 21. What did young people do with money?
I don't mean to say that they'd all be irresponsible with it, but let's be reasonable here. None of us would hand that sum of money to our kids, or particularly hand it to soldiers who are going through operational stress injuries. What helps them is a steady, slower, small, predictable source of funding.
It also helps them in other ways. You cannot take the Veterans Affairs benefits to a bank and secure a loan against them, or a mortgage, because they're all revokable. As soon as you get a medical assessment, they can disappear. My brothers pre-2006 could take a government pension literally to the bank. There's more than just the dollar figure that we have to look at with the soldiers. We have to look at the characteristics of those benefits as well.
I hope that answers your question.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
Steven MacKinnon Liberal Gatineau, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Ouellette.
My question is for Mr. Saillant. I want to welcome FRAPRU to the committee.
You will agree that we have turned something of a corner in the fight against homelessness. Consultations on the issue are ongoing.
What does FRAPRU think of our first actions in the area of housing, our emerging infrastructure program and the new consultations undertaken by Minister Jean-Yves Duclos?
6:10 p.m.
Coordinator, Front d'action populaire en réaménagement urbain
Our expectations are high. We have already praised the announcements made in the budget, while pointing out their limitations, especially when it comes to the continuation of funding for existing social housing.
We have shown that $30 million for co-operatives and NPOs is a first step, but that only covers a two-year period. We cannot say that it's very reassuring for low-income people living in co-operative housing or not-for-profit housing. Two years go by fast, and only about a year remains at this point. Moreover, the entire affordable housing stock, which is managed by the provinces, has been completely left behind.
Some steps have indeed been taken, but much more will have to be done. That is why we are counting a great deal on the national strategy the government is currently discussing. We want that strategy to actually be a strategy and to be based on human rights, and that includes explicitly recognizing the right to housing in a piece of legislation, such as the Canadian Human Rights Act. In addition, that strategy must be coupled with significant and recurring investments.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Thank you.
We'll turn now to Mr. Liepert, who is splitting with Mr. Albas.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
Ron Liepert Conservative Calgary Signal Hill, AB
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to split my time with Mr. Albas.
Mr. Bloomer, when this committee sent out the request for submissions, it outlined three areas. I'd like to read them to you.
1. What federal measures would help Canadians generally—and such specific groups as the unemployed, Indigenous peoples, those with a disability and senior—maximize, in the manner of their choosing, their contributions to the country's economic growth? 2. What federal actions would assist Canada's businesses—in all regions and sectors—meet their expansion, innovation and prosperity goals, and thereby contribute to economic growth in the country? 3. What federal measures would ensure that urban, rural and remote communities throughout Canada enable residents to make their desired contribution to the country's economic growth?
Mr. Bloomer, if the government were to get off the couch tomorrow and approve a pipeline such as Kinder Morgan, which is sitting there waiting to be approved, would that go to meeting all three of these requests without costing the treasury a red nickel, yes or no?
6:10 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Energy Pipeline Association
Yes.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
Ron Liepert Conservative Calgary Signal Hill, AB
Thank you.
That was for my colleagues across the way, Mr. Bloomer. If you'd like elaborate on that, please do so.