Health Committee on Feb. 10th, 2011

[Manuel Arango, Member, Advocacy Committee, Chronic Disease Prevention Alliance of Canada]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and committee members.

On behalf of the Chronic Disease Prevention Alliance of Canada, also known as CDPAC, we'd like to thank you for the opportunity to share our perspective on what needs to be done to prevent chronic diseases, reduce obesity, and facilitate healthy living in Canada.

I am accompanied today by Mr. James Chauvin. We are both volunteer members of CDPAC's advocacy committee.

CDPAC is a network of 10 national organizations that share a common vision for maintaining health and preventing chronic disease in Canada. Chronic diseases are a significant burden in Canada, costing the Canadian economy around $93 billion annually.

Obesity has been linked to the development of chronic diseases. Obesity levels among adults and children in Canada are at historically high levels. No doubt this committee has heard in the past from other witnesses that unless effective interventions are in place to reduce obesity, the youth of today may live shorter lives than their parents do.

We know that to tackle obesity and prevent chronic disease we need a comprehensive, multifactorial, and multi-sectoral approach. In September 2010, the federal, provincial, and territorial ministers of health proposed a framework to promote healthy weights. This framework addresses the need to increase the availability and accessibility of nutritious foods and beverages and to decrease the marketing to children of foods and beverages high in fat, sugar, and/or sodium, which, for the sake of convenience, I will refer to as unhealthy foods.

With respect to marketing to children, the scientific literature is quite clear. The marketing of food and beverages to children impacts on their food and beverage choices. We know that over 80% of the foods and beverages marketed to kids are unhealthy. We also know that unhealthy food and beverage choices do contribute to childhood obesity. There is a definite link between the marketing and the childhood obesity.

The current self-regulatory approach to marketing to children that is predominant in Canada is insufficient to deal with the high rates of childhood overweight and obesity. An exception is the law in Quebec that prohibits commercial marketing directed to children. Interestingly enough, in that province they have one of the lowest soft drink consumption rates in Canada, among the highest fruit and vegetable consumption rates in Canada, and the lowest obesity rate among six- to 11-year-old children.

We recommend that as an initial step the federal government and NGOs work with the food and beverage industry to strengthen the industry's current voluntary initiative that aims to limit the marketing of unhealthy foods and beverages to children. As well, we call on the food and beverage industry, in collaboration with civil society and government, to augment the marketing of healthy foods and beverages to children.

If the above measures do not prove sufficient in the near term, the federal government should immediately introduce regulatory regimes to prohibit the marketing of unhealthy foods and beverages to children.

Now I will turn my attention to the issue of beverages that are high in sugar.

Consider some of these facts. In Canada, consumption rates of sugar-sweetened beverages increase from 10% among children aged one to three to over 40% among youth 14 to 18 years of age. The average Canadian consumes a whopping 73 litres of soft drinks annually. We know that each additional serving of a sugar-sweetened beverage increases the risk of obesity in middle-school students by 60%. Evidence supports the link between the over-consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and the development of obesity among children and also among the general population.

We strongly commend Health Canada for drawing attention to the link between sugar-sweetened beverages and childhood obesity in its current public awareness campaign on children's health. You have no doubt seen the ads. They've been running from December and they go until March 31 on TV, I believe.

What can we do to deal with sugar-sweetened beverages? Raising public awareness is very important, as Health Canada is currently doing. However, one of the measures that we should also consider--within the context of a multi-pronged approach--is taxation.

We know that tax increases for sugar-sweetened beverages have been associated with reduced consumption. For example, as the price of one particular brand of soft drink increased by 12%, sales were seen to drop by 14.6%. Price does have an impact. An added benefit of such a tax is that it would generate substantial revenues for governments, revenue that could be used to support healthy-living initiatives.

A recent public opinion poll found that the majority of Canadians agree that governments should add a tax on sugary drinks if the revenue from the tax is invested in the prevention of obesity and the promotion of healthy lifestyles. Similar results have been found in other polls, including in British Columbia, where 70% support was found.

We recommend that the federal, provincial, and territorial governments explore the possibility of introducing a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages in their respective jurisdictions. We also recommend that the revenues regenerated from these taxes be used to fund healthy-living initiatives.

Finally, although tobacco has not been considered in these hearings, we wish to express support for the extension or renewal of the federal tobacco control strategy. Tobacco control is crucial to chronic disease prevention and healthy living. The existing 10-year strategy expires very soon, on March 31, 2011. Either extending the existing strategy beyond March 31 or announcing a new strategy effective April 1 will ensure that Health Canada's cessation and prevention programs, not to mention the new social media campaign linked to tobacco package warnings, will continue on course.

My very last comment pertains to food security. Food security exists when people have equal access to a safe, nutritious diet. Income-related food security is widely acknowledged as a key social determinant of health. We know that people who live in poverty suffer from a higher incidence of a number of chronic diseases. The effects of food insecurity also have devastating effects on every aspect of a child's development. Therefore, we recommend that the federal government work with other levels of government to develop effective long-term strategies to achieve food security.

Thank you very much.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Tim Uppal]

Thank you very much.

Now we will hear from the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada.

[Linda Piazza, Director, Research and Health Policy, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members.

I'm Linda Piazza, the director of research and health policy at the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada. On behalf of the foundation, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to share our perspective on what we need to do as a society to make healthy living the easy choice for Canadians.

The Heart and Stroke Foundation is a national, volunteer-based health charity. We've worked for over 50 years to prevent heart disease and stroke by funding cardiovascular research, promoting healthy living to Canadians, and working with all levels of government to influence heart-healthy policies for Canadians.

Our cause is urgent. Heart disease and stroke cost Canada $20.9 billion annually in health care costs and lost productivity. They represent the number one cause of death among women, of drug prescriptions, and of hospital admissions in Canada.

Heart disease and stroke share many of the same risk factors as other chronic diseases, including unhealthy diets, physical inactivity, and smoking. The following are some of the measures that we need to address now, within a comprehensive approach.

The consumption of sodium is far too high in this country. Adult Canadians consume about 3,500 milligrams a day, far above the recommended adequate level for most adults of about 1,500 milligrams a day. Excess sodium consumption leads to high blood pressure, which is the most significant risk factor for heart disease and stroke.

We urge the government to implement the recommendations of the federally appointed sodium working group. In particular, it is critical that the federal government implement, in a transparent way, a process to monitor sodium levels in our food supply as soon as possible.

Secondly, on nutrition tax policies, with respect to sugar-sweetened beverages, Health Canada, in its current children's health and safety campaign, as you've just heard, has correctly highlighted the link between the over-consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and childhood obesity. Like trans fats, sugar-sweetened beverages have no nutritional value whatsoever--only health risks.

The Heart and Stroke Foundation commissioned a scoping review that we presented at the Canadian Cardiovascular Congress in October. It looked at the effectiveness of economic policies to address health and obesity. The report recommended that it was time to move on the taxation of sugar-sweetened beverages. We call on the federal government to seriously explore this initiative.

We need to develop communities that make it easy to be physically active. The federal government can play a role by ensuring that a percentage of transportation infrastructure funding is set aside for active transportation initiatives and also by renewing the successful recreational infrastructure Canada fund.

Trans fats are responsible for thousands of cardiac deaths every year in Canada. Like sugar-sweetened beverages, trans fats have no health benefits--only risks. Health Canada reports that 25% of the food supply is still laced with heart-clogging trans. Moreover, foods that are often consumed by children, such as cookies, cakes, doughnuts, and brownies, remain alarmingly high in trans fats. We need federal regulations in this area--no two ways about it.

It is critical that the federal government make nutrition labelling easier to understand for Canadians. The recent nutrition facts educational initiative is a start; however, much more needs to be done. For example, it is imperative that we standardize serving sizes for like products on the nutrition facts panel.

Over 80% of the food and beverages marketed to children in Canada are unhealthy. Again, it is critical that we work together to implement initiatives to eliminate this type of marketing.

Funding is also critically important for healthy living. The Heart and Stroke Foundation has proposed a heart health action plan for Canada, comprised of four initiatives. One of these initiatives calls for federal support for a national campaign to raise public awareness about women and heart disease. You've just heard me say that it's the number one cause of death among Canadian women. Only 23% of women in Canada understand how serious a health concern heart disease and stroke are for them.

On tobacco, I would like to underscore that as a key action on healthy living, we must continue our work on tobacco control. We applaud the new package warnings, as well as the flavours ban, in Bill C-32. We at the Heart and Stroke Foundation urge continuation of the federal tobacco control strategy to ensure that prevention and cessation programs are not halted. The strategy expires imminently on March 31, 2011.

Finally, aside from action on the domestic front, the federal government has a unique opportunity to champion several of the issues we have raised today at the upcoming United Nations noncommunicable diseases summit in New York City this coming fall. We urge the government to do so.

Thank you very much.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Tim Uppal]

Thank you.

We will now hear from ParticipACTION.

[Kelly Murumets]

Good afternoon. Thank you very much for inviting us to present today. We're honoured.

My name is Kelly Murumets. I'm the president and CEO of ParticipACTION. We are the national voice of physical activity and sport participation in the country. Our vision is that Canadians will be the most physically active people on earth, and I will tell you that I jump out of bed every morning, I love my job, and I'm jazzed to be the leader of an organization with that kind of mandate.

Some of you will remember ParticipACTION from when you were kids. This is how I know how old you are. If you remember the 60-year-old Swede, you're a wee bit older than I am. If you remember the flexed arm hang, you're my age. If you remember Hal and Joanne, you're a wee bit younger. It's an iconic brand. It has been around for more than 30 years. More than 88% of Canadians between 35 and 55 years of age know our brand, and 80% of all Canadians know our brand.

That we're back is a fantastic thing. The reason we're back? Not so fantastic.

This afternoon I'd like to take you through stats that will knock your socks off, the consequences of physical inactivity in the country, what we believe to be the solution—and it's multi-faceted and complex—what other countries are doing, and tell you that ultimately leadership is our legacy, so all hope is not lost.

For stats that will knock your socks off, more than 50% of Canadians are deemed physically inactive. Only 7% of the kids in our country meet the daily physical activity guidelines. According to a recent CHMS survey, our kids are fatter, rounder, weaker, and less flexible than their parents were at their age. We know that childhood obesity rates have tripled in the last three decades. We also know that our kids spend on average six hours a day on screens. Multiplied by seven, that's as much time on screens as their parents spend in their jobs.

The consequences are dire. Twenty-five chronic diseases are directly linked to physical inactivity. We know that kids who are more active are smarter, happier, and healthier. We know they have better self-esteem and better mental health and are better team players. They're less prone to bullying and other negative behaviours. They eat in a healthier way and they're less likely to smoke or to engage in early sexual activity.

But forget the social and health benefits: let me just talk about the economics. I know that these are old data, but in 2001, $5.3 billion was directly attributable to physical inactivity. We know from the Conference Board of Canada that Canada could save $76 billion over the next 10 years by tackling the five main risks of heart disease, physical inactivity being one of them.

We know that the stats just from Ontario--from TD Bank--show that in 12 years' time, if we continue on the same trajectory, health care costs will account for 70% of the Ontario budget alone, leaving 30% for education, infrastructure, and other great services.

As for the solution, it is a complex issue, so it requires a very complex solution. It needs to be multifaceted, as some of my colleagues here mentioned. We need a vision. We need support. We need a champion at the federal government level. This must be owned by someone in the federal government.

We need a fully integrated strategy. ParticipACTION is facilitating a cross-functional, sector-wide process to create a fully integrated strategy for Canada. It's called Active Canada 20/20. FPT governments must be involved. NGOs must be involved. The private sector and academics must be involved. We need the consensus of all of those folks.

The solution must include schools and child care, so we need trained professionals teaching physical education. We need physical activity at schools. We need after-school options that are accessible by all people of all SES levels.

Hospitals and health care facilities must start prescribing prevention and physical activity.

NGOs need programs and facilities at the community level that all folks in Canada can access.

In the built environment, we need sidewalks--it's as simple as sidewalks--bike lanes, parks, and good lighting.

We need research. CSEP is doing phenomenal work in research. We need to fund research so we understand what's going on.

We must fund evaluation. Too often in the not-for-profit sector, we ask if a program is good, and people say yes, it is, because a lot of people come out to it. That doesn't work. We need evaluation with organizations like CFLRI and other academics.

We need social marketing. At ParticipACTION, we have three pillars, one of which is social marketing. Indisputably, social marketing is effective, but it must be sustained.

As well, we need resources. Resources must be deployed to the sector, and they need to be deployed in a strategic fashion, not with a one-year project horizon.

The sector does work collaboratively now. We work unbelievably collaboratively. CSEP and ParticipACTION put out those physical activity guidelines you heard about earlier. Active Canada 20/20 is the consensus of many members of our advisory groups--so again, facilitated by ParticipACTION. But they need money; we can't just operate collaboratively.

You asked in your notes, “What are other countries doing?” In the U.S., Michelle Obama is heading up the “Let's Move” campaign. The U.S. has deployed a billion dollars a year, times 10 years. I know.... Divide us by 10--I know we're not the U.S.--and that's $100 million a year times 10 years. I would tell you that the Public Health Agency of Canada this year told us that we have $800,000 to deploy between 12 organizations. That is a far cry from $100 million a year.

The WHO, the U.S., the U.K., and Australia have created physical activity guidelines. They came out before ours did and all of their research was done by our Canadian researchers. It's ridiculous: we're falling behind and we have an opportunity to be leaders in the world.

That's where I'd like to leave this. Leadership is our legacy. We have an opportunity to vault Canada into a global leadership position. We need to declare healthy active living as part of our country's economic policy. That's what I mentioned to Minister Flaherty most recently. A country that moves is one that thrives.

Healthy active living is the linchpin of a robust economy and a guarantor of a healthier future for the country. If we invest in physical activity now, Canada can lead the world in economic prosperity.

The last note I would like to leave you with is a little bit hokey, but I'll tell you that our kids and our youth, they are our future. I know that sounds hokey, but it's true. We need to invest in the best future possible for them. They are the best and the most important legacy that we can leave.

Thank you.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Tim Uppal]

We will now hear from Physical and Health Education Canada.

[Andrea Grantham, Executive Director, Physical and Health Education Canada]

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak with you today.

I had the opportunity to speak to this committee four years ago and also to participate in the Kellie Leitch “Reaching for the Top” report . I also spoke last year to the Standing Committee on Finance. A lot of the messages that I will speak of today are very consistent, because we still have a huge challenge in front of us.

For almost 18 years, I've spent my days working on promoting this and enabling of every child in this country to benefit from quality physical and health education programs within schools, within supportive healthy school environments. In these times, it's hard to imagine something more important. It's also hard not to lose patience with the fact that despite all we know, we still have a huge health challenge in front of us.

I'm here to build on Kelly's message and CSEP's and Josette's on the importance of and the critical need for federal leadership around a Canadian strategy and funding commitment to address the issue of childhood obesity, physical inactivity, and chronic disease prevention in this country.

In September 2010, many of us were thrilled that the FPT ministers responsible for health made a public commitment to curb childhood obesity. It has been a long time that we've been waiting for this kind of commitment and now we're waiting for action on that commitment.

I know that many speakers have come before me and you’ve heard a wealth of statistics. We've doubled and tripled our obesity rates. In fact, Canada is one of the worst among OECD countries with regard to childhood obesity. It’s staggering.

Ninety-three per cent of Canadian children are not living up to the Canadian physical activity guidelines. There is no movement on achieving any of the goals that we've set around increasing physical activity levels. Just today, while driving into work, I heard on the news that the costs related to stroke and hospital care since 1995 are up by 50%--directly related to obesity.

Today I am here before this committee to urge you to include in your recommendations the importance of having the Government of Canada stand behind a national strategy and a commitment to fulfill its financial role to support and enable a healthy and physically active Canada.

We have extensive research. We hear the news in the media. We have targets that are being set and not being met. We see leadership and action all around the world. I attended a conference on physical activity in Europe in December and I was amazed at the amount of commitment and work happening in Europe. I am really concerned about how much we are falling behind here in Canada.

I am also concerned by the fact that this is not going to change any time soon. In the recent Public Health Agency of Canada health promotion and chronic disease strategic plan for 2010 to 2015, developed just this past year and designed to articulate the key areas of emphasis and key initiatives for which progress will be measured, there is only one indirect line that addresses physical activity in this 13-page document.

If this is not corrected by 2015, Canada will have no federal strategy or investment to decrease physical inactivity. Without this, the battle against obesity will be lost. We ask today that Canada get serious about this issue.

I've had the opportunity to speak with many ministers, senators, and government officials. There seems to be agreement across the board that it's a no-brainer, it makes sense, and we should be doing this. This is what we continually hear.

We also know that the investment will pay off. Studies show that increasing physical activity in Canada by just 10% will result in significant health care savings. Leading researchers tell us, as we’ve heard already, that the best way to counteract chronic diseases like cancer and heart disease and stroke is to increase physical activity.

We also know, as Kelly mentioned, that children and youth who are physically active do better in school. They also are more productive and are much better contributors to society.

From where I sit at Physical and Health Education Canada, our goal is to see that every child receives their fundamental right to quality physical education and health education, all taught within health-promoting school environments. This is a place where we have the potential of reaching every child, regardless of their age, gender, socio-economic status, or culture. It's the place where children spend half of their waking hours.

With a quarter of our childhood population being overweight and obese and only 7% meeting physical activity guidelines, we can't argue that this issue rests in education. This is a health issue, and the highest level of leadership is required to support an environment that allows every school in this country to fulfill this important role.

We must take a stand similar to those of the World Health Organization and the United Nations to fulfill this fundamental right to every child. We must take seriously the “Toronto Charter for Physical Activity”, which is a global charter for all countries to help make physical activity a priority for all.

Recently, eight national organizations came together through funding from the Public Health Agency of Canada to work collaboratively on a pan-Canadian physical activity strategy to address access for every child to after-school programs. This is an example of organizations' willingness and ability to work together.

But to truly make an impact on this issue, we need much more. This needs to be a component of a much larger strategy and a greater commitment that will allow policy-makers, stakeholders, corporations, employers, community organizations, and educational institutions to all play a role towards a common vision and strategy.

In closing, I ask this: how much more evidence do we really need?

Given the magnitude of this problem, we require the highest level of leadership in this country, working alongside all levels of government and across many departments. The physical activity sector is at the table. We're ready to work collaboratively.

We're taking leadership on the development of a plan. This plan cannot be activated without a federal government commitment, plan, and action. Without this investment, we will not begin to turn around these shocking results.

Thank you.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Tim Uppal]

Thank you very much.

We will now go into our first round of questions by our members.

Mr. Dosanjh and Ms. Duncan will be sharing their time.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Thank you very much. All of you have made eloquent presentations.

I just have one question on the much revered ParticipACTION--legitimately revered. Don't misunderstand the thrust of my question. It's asked in good faith.

The other day we heard, as part of the testimony in this committee, that you have partnered with Coke or Coca-Cola to do a project across the country. Immediately, a sort of question mark arose in my mind. We've heard from Mr. Arango about how obesity is a huge problem. So can you tell us what went into that decision, how that decision was made, and how you will protect children who would listen to you from the attraction to things like Coca-Cola and soft drinks?

[Kelly Murumets]

Sure. I get asked that question quite often. ParticiPACTION believes strongly that--

By the way, I come from the private sector. I left the private sector because I'd like to go and change the world. I believe the only way to do that is for the not-for-profit sector to be arm in arm with the private sector, the public sector, and their partners in the not-for-profit sector. That's just a fundamental philosophy that I personally have and that ParticiPACTION adopts.

We have several partners in the private sector--again, because if we want to translate the issue into a solution, we need to have all of those partners arm in arm.

In the very specific example of Coca-Cola, I believe that demonizing any one private sector organization is wrong and that in fact if you want to talk about private sector organizations, there are almost none that would be okay private sector partners for the not-for-profit sector. If you think about water organizations, there are environmental issues. If you think about Nike, there are labour practice issues. I've taken lots and lots of private sector organization sponsorship prospects to my not-for-profit tables, and they all have issues.

So Coca-Cola, I understand, has been demonized and is one that is most spoken of in terms of private sector organizations. My belief is that if you are on the same side of the table having conversations with Coca-Cola, you have an opportunity to influence them. They are arguably one of the most successful and effective global corporations and they have an opportunity to influence a great deal in our country and around the world. If we can pull them onside...and I would tell you that our partnership with them has been over the last two years. In the last two years--and I won't suggest that ParticiPACTION's influence is responsible for all of these changes--policies around marketing have changed and policies around packaging have changed. Marketing practices have changed as a result of this. So I will just kind of give you that as the philosophy.

In terms of our relationship with them, we wanted to tackle youth. You heard earlier from Andrea and from me that only 7% of Canadian kids meet the daily physical activity guidelines. As kids get older, their physical activity levels decline, so teenagers are the most vulnerable population in our country, and we didn't know how to get at youth. If you partner with an insurance company, for example, youth aren't going to be drawn to that particular brand.

So now we have an opportunity to use a brand that kids will find relevant, and if we can use it to do good and not evil, we can make a difference. In the last two and a half years, we have gone from zero teenagers in our program to almost 20,000 kids--youth, teenagers--in our program, who are more physically active today than they were two years ago. The whole idea is about youth leading youth. Youth inspire youth. They've now been able to build and create a momentum or a movement--a funny little word in my world--around physical activity. There were 1,300 of our kids who carried the torch in the 2010 Winter Olympics, so obviously Coke came with the magic of the Olympics.

The contract between Coca-Cola and ParticiPACTION took longer to negotiate than any.... I've bought and sold eight companies in my career. It took longer to negotiate that contract because it's a wildly responsible contract in terms of how they can use our brand, where they can use our brand, and the expectations of them in that relationship.

Coca-Cola creates lots and lots of products, not just the soft drinks that my colleague was talking about earlier, so we're helping them to promote those healthy choices as opposed to the unhealthy choices. That's the rationale behind that decision from a ParticiPACTION perspective.

I'd also offer you this. If you want to go out and change the world, we need to be there with the private sector. I'd also say that there isn't enough money in our sector to make change without private sector dollars, so I wouldn't tell you that we did the deal just for dollars, but they did deploy $5 million to youth over the five-year period of the program. That's a substantial amount of money.

My belief is that they're authentic partners. They want Canadians to move more. We use their resources and their marketing expertise to do good and we continue to do good.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Thank you. I would have asked the question about any other drink. It didn't matter whether it was Coke.

[Kelly Murumets]

Right.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Thank you.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you.

I guess for me the fundamental issue is that most Canadians, research would say, know what a healthy lifestyle looks like, but they don't necessarily live it. That's the fundamental issue. If you look at surveys, people will rate themselves as healthy, but in reality probably nine out of ten of us have at least one risk factor; I think the place where you have to start is making healthier choices and controlling risks and you've got to do it with our children.

So the question I have for you is this: is there a role for the federal government? I'm thinking about two places: healthy food at school and food security, and physical activity in school. I'm wondering if you can make specific recommendations to this committee regarding these, please.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Tim Uppal]

In less than a minute--

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Kelly Murumets]

That was good. I got in before. My answer could have gone more quickly.

Who are you asking it of, Kirsty?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

I will put it out to anyone.

[Kelly Murumets]

Do you want to go first, Andrea?

[Andrea Grantham]

Well, we understand that education is a provincial jurisdiction, but as I mentioned in my speech, this is a health issue. You have these statistics on the health of our kids and we know that every child goes to school.

So definitely, we need the federal government, like the World Health Organization and UNESCO, to take a strong stance and say that physical education is a fundamental right for every child and they should be accessing a quality physical education program, which equates to about 150 minutes a week, and also a qualified teacher and adequate resources in a supportive environment.

When I say “a supportive environment”, it's not just what happens in the gymnasium or the health education class. It's what the policies are within the school environment around healthy food choices and access, around services for all children--not just interscholastic sports, but intramurals for all--and opportunities where every child has a means of getting the health they need. We certainly advocate for a quality physical education program and for the federal government to make a similar statement and to support the provinces in making that happen.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Tim Uppal]

Thank you.

Monsieur Malo.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Ms. Gravier-Grauby started us off talking about prevention. Then the rest of the witnesses, who, by the way, I would like to welcome, stressed the importance of doing everything in our power to promote prevention.

Ms. Murumets, you said the statistics on physical activity and youth were dreadful, as compared with their elders, that kids were in much worse shape than their parents were at their age.

In 2006, the federal government created a children's fitness tax credit. I tried to find information on how effective that measure has been, but to no avail.

This question is also for our analysts, who can look into this later. I want to know whether any of you have seen any significant behavioural changes in children since 2006, as a result of this tax credit.

[Manuel Arango]

I think I would answer the question this way. Intuitively and theoretically, a tax credit should work. You're going to have a very difficult time showing that tax credits on their own have a specific contribution, perhaps, to physical activity, but we do know that if you combine a tax credit with a number of other factors, you can improve health and you can reduce obesity levels, etc.

The key is that when you have a comprehensive approach, each variable that you work on, each intervention, has an impact and a synergistic effect on other variables and factors and interventions.

I would say theoretically that a children's fitness tax credit should work. We welcomed the children's fitness tax credit. In fact, in the past we have advocated for a credit to be extended to adults. I know that the federal government, a few years ago in one of its election platforms, committed to making that tax credit refundable. We think that will help low income people. We're hoping the government will act on that in the future.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Do you want to comment? Go ahead.

[Josette Gravier-Grauby]

That is precisely why I wanted to appear before the committee.

Of course, children may become more physically active because of this tax credit. And that is wonderful. But why does that same tax credit not extend to people 50 plus? That is something I really want to know.

Who could really use an incentive? People 50 plus who are getting older. They need a push to continue being physically active. Obviously, it is just an incentive, but if we give it to parents for their children, why not give it to all these older people who are also getting fit?

It is not easy for an older person to be physically active. But, if we encourage them and let them know they are eligible for a small tax credit, that is a pretty good incentive. So I do not see why the government gives the tax credit in the case of children—which, I repeat, is great—but not in the case of those 50 plus. That is very significant. There might be fewer people in hospitals if older folks could also access this measure.

Who is taking up space in our hospitals? It's not children. It will be their turn later. But right now, who is crowding our hospitals? It's adults with obesity-related problems, precisely because they are not in shape. And that is why I have spent 23 years focusing on prevention for people 50 plus. Ms. Murumets and Ms. Grantham, it's wonderful that you are concerned about children. I, however, am concerned about people 50 plus.

All of you are going to grow old, and you need to remember that. Now is the time to start being active. Children are important, yes, but the population we really need to focus on now is the aging population so we do not reach the breaking point 10 years down the line.

That is what I wanted to say. Thank you.