Evidence of meeting #165 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was beer.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Peter Fragiskatos  London North Centre, Lib.
Raymond Massey  Interim Executive Director, Canadian Apprenticeship Forum
Athana Mentzelopoulos  Vice-President, Government Relations, Canadian Credit Union Association
Geneviève de Breyne-Gagnon  Advocacy Coordinator, Canadian Federation of University Women
Stephen Laskowski  President, Canadian Trucking Alliance
Toby Sanger  Executive Director, Canadians for Tax Fairness
Beth Woroniuk  Policy Lead, MATCH International Women’s Fund
Sarah Watts-Rynard  Past Executive Director, Canadian Apprenticeship Forum
Luke Harford  President, Beer Canada
Jack Froese  President, Canadian Canola Growers Association
Ron Lemaire  President, Canadian Produce Marketing Association
Dan Paszkowski  President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Vintners Association
Louise Bradley  President and Chief Executive Officer, Mental Health Commission of Canada
Ed Mantler  Vice-President, Programs and Priorities, Mental Health Commission of Canada
Jan Westcott  President and Chief Executive Officer, Spirits Canada
Kim Rudd  Northumberland—Peterborough South, Lib.
Blake Richards  Banff—Airdrie, CPC
Rick White  Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Canola Growers Association

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB

You mentioned that regulatory structures seem to beget the types of financial institutions and services that are available. I think you said that if you design a regulatory system that is geared toward a small number of very large players, then those are the players you will have.

Do you have some specific recommendations for regulatory change that might increase the service offerings to Canadians and provide better competition for financial services in Canada?

4:30 p.m.

Vice-President, Government Relations, Canadian Credit Union Association

Athana Mentzelopoulos

I would take you back to Basel III. If we go with the full implementation of Basel III for all financial institutions—I think federal policy-makers recognize that it's not a good option—it would essentially bind us to rules that are the same right now for the big banks, with one exception. Under Basel III, there is opportunity for big banks, because of their structure, to actually design their own capital floor. That wouldn't be available to credit unions.

What we've found is that the previous iteration, Basel II, has been quite sufficient in leaving in or keeping a high level of safety and soundness for credit unions. We're asking policy-makers to take a very mindful approach as they take that international standard and adapt it so that it's calibrated to small domestic institutions and doesn't undermine our ability to lend money—for example, to be involved in mortgage lending.

That's one example. I talked as well about our market conduct code. Instead of adopting new regulatory approaches for credit unions, with all the attendant compliance costs, what we're asking is that both federal and provincial policy-makers just not do that. It's a fairly significant red tape avoidance exercise. We think that co-operative values have already demonstrated a high level of member service. We can codify those, and we can demonstrate compliance with a self-made consumer code.

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Thanks, all of you.

Mr. McLeod, go ahead.

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Michael McLeod Liberal Northwest Territories, NT

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to all of you for the very interesting presentations. These are very interesting subjects.

I want to talk a bit about the apprenticeship presentation that we heard, and more specifically about the indigenous component of the presentation. I represent a riding that is over 50% indigenous.

The communities I represent always say that the best program we could have for our people is a job, yet we have high pockets of unemployment in the north. We know that to improve the northern economy we need good employment training opportunities to work for us as northerners.

Could you highlight some of the existing apprenticeship programs that have addressed some of the challenges faced by the northern people or the indigenous people in the north? Could you maybe identify how these programs can be scaled up to assist people who are living in rural and remote communities?

4:35 p.m.

Interim Executive Director, Canadian Apprenticeship Forum

Raymond Massey

I'll speak to one and then maybe get Sarah to speak to another.

I'm a product of the Alberta apprenticeship industry training system. I chaired that board for a number of years. Through involvement in that system, I was able to travel to various parts of the province. In particular, one time I went up to the northeast part of the province, where there was an indigenous project called the northeast aboriginal apprenticeship initiative. There were three bands that got together—just as in our submission—working on building homes for the reserve. They organized it through one of the local colleges. They were able to come out to the reserve, design the program, and have the young kids involved in building those homes. It was amazing to see the quality of the work. Our submission talks about getting these kids.... Sometimes they drag them out of the house and bring them to school to have them trained and get them on the work site, but you know, it's the beginning of getting these people skilled up.

I talked about societal change. I talked about the generational change this can have, which I believe it will have in that community, because they are productive contributors to that area. It's not just on the one reserve, but on three reserves. It's a very successful program right now.

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Michael McLeod Liberal Northwest Territories, NT

I have watched many governments and different sectors of industry really try to improve the work environment and the training opportunities for aboriginal people. The diamond mines in my riding have done many things that seem to be working. They've introduced literacy programs right at the work site. In the remote camps, they have literacy programs.

They've introduced mobility assistance programs. Some industries will bring in a worker from the west coast or the east coast and pay their way, but they won't pay for the aboriginal guy to come from the next community, even though he has no vehicle. They've introduced some mobility assistance programs that really help.

I watch some of the indigenous governments as they start to get involved in providing a lot of post-secondary support, and that seems to help. We still see large government projects that have nobody who is aboriginal on the job.

Do you think there are any programs we could introduce to encourage the government and any project that is government-funded or partially government-funded to force people or encourage people to start hiring and training indigenous people?

We have over 155,000 indigenous people sitting unemployed in our communities. Indigenous people don't normally migrate to where the work is, but there are reasons for that, and if there's a way to make it work.... If we're going to have true reconciliation, we need economic reconciliation. If we're going to do that, we need to start training people and we need to allow them to participate. Is there anything that you can recommend to us?

4:40 p.m.

Interim Executive Director, Canadian Apprenticeship Forum

Raymond Massey

I couldn't agree more. I'll defer to Sarah.

4:40 p.m.

Past Executive Director, Canadian Apprenticeship Forum

Sarah Watts-Rynard

I think a key piece is probably community benefits agreements as part of infrastructure spending. I know this is something under consideration, and it certainly gives us an opportunity to start thinking about how we can engage the local community, not only in terms of an indigenous workforce, but also in hiring and training apprentices—hiring people who don't have their certification yet but are interested in working on it.

Some of the most successful initiatives are led by the indigenous communities themselves. It's really recognizing people who are committed and determined, and want to do something with their life. They become the leaders and they become journeypersons themselves, who are in a position to train and mentor. That's what works.

It doesn't really matter which industry it is, but that's what we're seeing in different communities. We're seeing it in remote communities and northern communities, and even in urban communities. What works is local indigenous people who are skilled and able to mentor the next generation and get them involved.

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

I'm sorry, but we're out of time.

Do you have any examples of community benefits agreements?

4:40 p.m.

Past Executive Director, Canadian Apprenticeship Forum

Sarah Watts-Rynard

That is something we're starting to see. We're starting to see it in the provincial governments, for example the move toward making all projects funded by the Government of Manitoba include apprenticeship. We're seeing the same thing happening in Ontario and British Columbia, and it's something they're looking at in Alberta and Nova Scotia as well.

There is definitely movement toward the inclusion of apprenticeship, and I think those become opportunities to think about how we engage the local community and young people in opportunities to benefit from federal and provincial government work. The government is a huge user of skilled trades talent. You have the opportunity, as the owner community, to say that this is what you want.

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Thank you.

I have to come back to the Canadian Trucking Alliance for a minute on Driver Inc. Is that just enforcement? Does it require a legislative change? How do we deal with that issue? The parliamentary secretary for the CRA is here.

4:40 p.m.

President, Canadian Trucking Alliance

Stephen Laskowski

Technically, it's a classification issue. It's being blended. Historically, to be a contractor driver in the trucking industry involves a truck, some ownership responsibility for that vehicle, payment responsibility for that vehicle, fuel, plates, etc. What is happening now is an evolution, which we refer to as Driver Inc., where drivers incorporate themselves and refer to themselves as contractors, or for tax code purposes as a small business, while having no, for lack of a better word, skin in the game. They don't own the truck. They have no responsibility. Their only cost is their workboots. They refer to themselves as a small business and apply. Quite frankly, Mr. Chair, they're using incorporation status because there are no source deductions on payroll. So they disappear. Just as in a typical ploy in the underground economy in other sectors, they disappear.

As I said to you, sir, and to the other members, we figure this is easily $1 billion. If you're looking for money to pay for projects, we don't need to increase taxes. We just need to collect them from people who aren't paying them.

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Okay. I'm sure the committee will want to look into that as well.

Thanks, everyone, for your presentations and your submissions earlier. As always, we've run out of time.

We will suspend for a couple of minutes and go to our next witnesses.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

I'd like to thank all the witnesses for coming to the continuation of our preliminary consultations for budget 2019.

I'll outline a bit of a problem we have. We're not going to have nearly as much time with you as we'd like. We have about 50 minutes. We have a vote at 6 p.m., so we'll have to adjourn at 5:45 p.m. because we're a little distance from the chamber.

Please hold your remarks as tight as you can. Members do have all these submissions, and I want to thank those of you who made them. They were short, concise and to the point, and we appreciate that.

We'll start with Beer Canada and Mr. Harford.

September 19th, 2018 / 4:50 p.m.

Luke Harford President, Beer Canada

Thank you.

My comments will be very brief and reflect what's in the formal submission.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for the invitation to appear here today.

In 2017, the domestic brewing industry employed 14,800 Canadians and paid $1 billion in wages. It also made 85% of the beer purchased by Canada's 10 million beer drinkers. Today, on average, the cost of a case of beer in Canada is 47% tax. Half the cost of beer is beer-specific tax.

In 2017, the federal government implemented legislation that raises the tax on beer automatically every year by the rate of inflation. The members of Beer Canada have been urging the government to repeal this automatic approach and replace it with a process that is sensitive to changes in the economy, a process that considers the circumstances of the brewer and the beer drinker.

In Canada, we have natural advantages in brewing beer: a large supply of fresh water, locally grown malt and barley that the federal government itself is investing in, and even locally grown hops, which are now making a return. These are the essential ingredients in beer. The fact that we can source them locally is a natural competitive advantage.

Beer generates a lot of tax revenue for governments in Canada. The federal excise tax remitted by Canadian brewers alone last year was $572 million. Adding in sales taxes, payroll taxes, corporate taxes, property taxes, and licensing fees, along with provincial liquor board markups, the sale of beer generated $5.7 billion in tax last year, according to a Conference Board of Canada report published in January. This represents a significant tax tab, ultimately shouldered by the Canadian beer drinker.

Since 2010, provincial governments have increased beer taxes 45 times, making beer less and less affordable with each increase. There are lots of changes taking place in the beer space, but high taxes are not helping brewers meet today's challenges. Per capita beer sales since 2010 have declined by 8.6%. The 2% increase to the federal excise duty announced in 2017 was a surprise, but it is the legislation to increase the duty rates every year that concerns brewers the most. Left as is, this tax mechanism will run in the background, eroding the competitiveness of Canadian beer with no process for considering market conditions or changing economic circumstances.

In our submission, we highlight several circumstances that have changed since the government's new tax policy was introduced.

The hot, dry summer has affected the quality and quantity of malt and barley coming from farms in Canada, the U.S., and Europe. This has pushed up the price of malt and barley, and upward pressure is expected to get worse in 2019.

The U.S. has imposed tariffs on Canadian aluminum, and Canada has retaliated with tariffs on aluminum cans made in America. Brewers are facing a tariff-on-tariff situation that is adding millions in cost to their companies. All the 473-millilitre cans used by Canadian brewers, especially popular among small brewers, are sourced from the United States.

In August, Statistics Canada reported that the annual inflation rate was running at 3%. That is 50% higher than the rate the government assumed when it modelled the revenue it would generate from its new policy on beer in budget 2017. The U.S. reduced federal beer taxes for American brewers as part of its Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. This rollback will benefit beer drinkers in the U.S., and it will make American brewers stronger and more competitive in export markets like Canada.

These are just a few examples of the economic variables that have changed since the government legislated automatic annual tax increases on beer. Tax policy needs to be sensitive to what is going on in the economy, sensitive to the things that are affecting the wallets of consumers and the business plans of producers. Legislating automatic annual tax increases is not the way to ensure Canada's competitiveness.

On behalf of Canada's brewers, I ask that the committee recommend repealing the annual inflation adjustment legislation set to increase the tax on beer every April 1. The specific sections are in our formal submission. In place of automatic annual tax hikes linked to inflation, I ask that the committee recommend that the federal government return to reviewing excise rates from time to time, taking inflation into account as a guide and proposing future tax increases to Canadians.

Thank you very much for your time. I would be glad to take any questions.

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Thank you very much, Mr. Harford.

We'll turn to the Canadian Canola Growers Association, with Mr. Froese and Mr. White.

4:55 p.m.

Jack Froese President, Canadian Canola Growers Association

Thank you for the opportunity to appear today regarding the study of the pre-budget consultations in advance of budget 2019.

As introduced, my name is Jack Froese. I am a fourth-generation family farmer from southern Manitoba and currently serve as president of the Canadian Canola Growers Association. CCGA is a national association of canola farmers, with members from Ontario to British Columbia. I'm here today with Rick White, CCGA's chief executive officer.

The canola sector has a plan for sustainable growth that will contribute to the government's growth target of $75 billion of agricultural exports by 2025. Our sector contributes $26.7 billion to the economy and employs 250,000 Canadians. We are export-dependent and appreciate the government's efforts on trade. We look forward to a successful resolution to NAFTA, a swift ratification of CPTPP and moving ahead with an FTA with China.

Today I would like to discuss the most pressing issues for Canada's 43,000 canola producers: taxation, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency and a long-term plan for Canada's transportation infrastructure.

First, a competitive tax environment in Canada supports industry and stimulates economic growth and innovation. Taxation levels are important considerations that influence competitiveness and investment decisions throughout the value chain. For agriculture, value chains are global, and Canadian farmers compete with farmers in other countries for market access and for investment dollars, be it investment in research and bringing in a new crop protection product or seed variety to our market, or in Canadian infrastructure.

The recent taxation changes in the United States are expected to negatively impact Canada's long-term competitiveness. To ensure alignment, we recommend lowering the combined federal and provincial corporate tax rates to 20% and matching the accelerated capital cost allowance provisions available to U.S. companies. This would help ensure that our entire value chain remains competitive and enables investments in the industry infrastructure required to grow our exports and generate economic spinoffs for Canada's middle class.

I would like to extend my appreciation for the new approach to passive investment held within a corporation, announced in budget 2018. To see farm businesses continue to innovate and invest in our economy, CCGA recommends indexing the $50,000 adjusted aggregate investment income and excluding farm rent from passive income. Indexing the limit maintains its value year to year. Renting farm land is a common form of passive income, particularly for farmers looking to transition the farm to the next generation and prepare for retirement.

Second, farmers use a variety of crop protection products to effectively manage weed, insect and disease problems that threaten their crops. We rely on the Pest Management Regulatory Agency to provide a predictable, transparent science- and evidence-based regulatory approval process to ensure the safety of these products while providing an attractive environment for companies developing crop inputs to invest in the Canadian market.

In recent years, the agricultural sector has experienced various challenges with the re-evaluation process. Farmers are very concerned that they'll lose access to effective solutions due to incomplete processes and lack of real-world data, and more largely, that investors will start doubting the Canadian investment climate. The high number of re-evaluations included in the agency's work plan and the pace of scientific advancements highlight the need to outfit the agency to appropriately keep pace. To this effect, it is crucial that the PMRA have the resources it needs to appropriately, effectively and efficiently make robust science- and evidence-based decisions that lead to the safe and sustainable use of crop protection products in Canada.

Lastly, we recommend that the government coordinate and invest in long-term strategic infrastructure improvements. Investments need to continue in the supply chain to consistently and efficiently service our global customers. This is core to our reputation as a trusted supplier of high-quality grains and oilseeds, and to achieving a diversified export program. On average, prairie farmers' grains travel 1,500 kilometres to reach an export port. Transportation corridors such as the Vancouver gateway need considerable funding to be upgraded to handle not simply the goods of today but the increased volumes of the future as Canada works to diversify its trade flows.

Government initiatives such as the modernization of the Canada Transportation Act and the national trade corridors fund are good starting points, but a long-term, ambitious and fully resourced plan is required.

This will not be easy, as it will require multi-party collaboration among government, the provinces, municipalities, railways, terminal asset-owners and the port. Long-term strategic investments would proactively position Canada as an export powerhouse and provide the infrastructure to reliably and consistently service global markets. We need to think and invest in the future, and that needs to start today.

In conclusion, I would like to thank you for including the canola growers in your deliberations.

5 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Thank you very much, Jack.

From the Canadian Produce Marketing Association, we have Mr. Lemaire, president.

5 p.m.

Ron Lemaire President, Canadian Produce Marketing Association

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members, for inviting me to speak today about budget 2019. While this is taking place over the dinner hour, I'm happy to see some of the members enjoying fresh fruit and vegetables on half their plate during committee, which, interestingly enough, will tie into my comments.

Under the theme of competitiveness, CPMA submitted five key recommendations for the committee to consider, which we believe would greatly benefit the industry and ensure long-term competitiveness for the sector. My remarks will address the following recommendations: progressive changes to the small-business deduction, funding for a new food policy and national food policy council, the development of a long-term data strategy for agriculture and agri-food, and funding to support an innovative fruit and vegetable industry in Canada.

CPMA is advocating today for two progressive changes to the small-business deduction, which would more accurately reflect modern agricultural small businesses and their operational requirements. These include changes to the limits within the small-business deduction and an expanded exemption for affiliated corporations.

Increasing the federal business and capital asset limits with regard to the small-business deduction would modernize the tax code by adjusting limits to 2018 numbers and tying them to inflation moving forward. The federal business limit for the small-business deduction has not increased since 2009, and the capital asset limits have not increased since they were established in 1994. The most significant impact for agricultural small businesses would be from increasing the capital asset limits, which are used to qualify for the small-business deduction. As you know, modern agricultural businesses, even small businesses, are capital-intensive and require significant capital investment by producers. Now is the time to modernize the limits of the small-business deduction and recognize the capital-intensive nature of modern agricultural small businesses.

Second, we are calling on the government to exempt agricultural businesses from the recent changes to the rules of affiliation and their impact on the eligibility for the small-business deduction. Under the rules released in 2016, which took effect this current tax-filing year, affiliated corporations must now divide their small-business deduction pro rata between the affiliated corporation and its shareholders, a stark change from the previous policy, which allowed both the corporation and its shareholders to individually claim their small-business deduction.

For the fresh produce industry, affiliated corporations are an effective business structure to consolidate product across multiple farms, share costs for packing and marketing, and allow retailers to deal with a single point of contact rather than multiple farming operations in an area.

Knowing this, we urge the government to expand the current exemption under these new rules offered to agricultural co-operatives to any affiliated corporation in which the majority of shareholders derive farm income as defined by the Canada Revenue Agency. We believe that the policy change has had an unintended impact on the agricultural sector, sometimes in the hundreds of thousands of dollars per company, and that a blanket agricultural exemption would recognize the unique nature of agricultural businesses and business structures that are used in order to be competitive in the marketplace.

Our third recommendation relates to the upcoming food policy in Canada. Recognizing the tight time frames you have here at committee with your need to go to the House, I will just quickly note that our request is simple. We're asking for a fully funded food policy for Canada, including the creation of a national food policy council. We've had over 45,000 Canadians participate in the consultations, and that clearly indicates that this is of importance to them from coast to coast. We believe that a new food policy would have great potential to establish an action plan that would help us grow the economy, address important social issues, and provide a road map for the future of food in our country. We are one of 50 organizations that have signed a letter of support to create a national food policy council, and funding would be essential to drive that forward.

Our fourth recommendation to the committee is on a perennial issue for all agriculture: the lack of data. Unlike many countries, such as the U.S. and Australia, Canada has a significant data deficit when it comes to agriculture. We're calling on Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada to strike a joint data working group to develop a long-term agriculture and agri-food data strategy. Our hope is that such a strategy would identify current data gaps and outline a path forward on how data could be utilized to increase our competitiveness in the global marketplace.

Our members consistently ask us for data that is not currently available or requires significant funds to acquire through a third party provider. Information such as purchasing choices, consumer trends, import-export numbers and commodity-specific information would allow our members to identify new market opportunities and new product development and increase their competitiveness.

Finally, our fifth recommendation is on innovation. CPMA has recently begun its process of developing and implementing a new innovation strategy for the fresh produce industry. This strategy will aim at connecting CPMA members with Canadian researchers, new start-ups and post-secondary institutions through a virtual innovation hub. Furthermore, CPMA will be launching a new national hackathon geared at post-secondary students and start-ups aimed at addressing the biggest challenges to promoting innovation in our industry and driving our businesses.

CPMA supports the current government's initiatives to promote innovation, but encourages an expanded innovation strategy, potentially including joint funding mechanisms, which would enable all industries, including small and medium enterprises, to participate in an innovation ecosystem and scale up to drive their competitiveness.

Thank you to the committee for allowing me to speak. I look forward to questions later.

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Thank you, Ron.

Next, we have the Canadian Vintners Association and Mr. Paszkowski.

5:05 p.m.

Dan Paszkowski President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Vintners Association

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Canadian wine industry is a $9-billion industry that manages 31,000 acres of vineyards, produces 85 million litres of wine, employs 37,000 Canadians and pays $1.7 billion in annual wages. In addition, Canada's wine sector attracts roughly four million tourists every year.

As as result, the national economic impact of a bottle of 100% Canadian wine is $90, or six times more than a bottle of imported wine sold in Canada. This poses an opportunity and a challenge: an opportunity because Canada is the wine market with the second-fastest sales growth in the world, and a challenge because we're the world's sixth-largest wine importer, with 91% of wine imports entering Canada tariff-free.

In our pre-budget 2019 submission, the CVA has proposed two recommendations.

The first is the immediate need for the federal government to prioritize the removal of interprovincial barriers for both personal transport and direct-to-consumer delivery of alcohol across Canada. Significant attention is rightly paid to international trade agreements, but we cannot forget to lead by example at home. Barriers to alcohol trade are long-standing, unjustifiable and costly trade irritants that must be resolved. Vulcanizing our already small domestic market and making it harder for Canadian wineries to grow and realize the economies of scale and other efficiency attributes of larger international competitors must be eliminated. This would benefit all Canadians through greater interprovincial commerce.

More than six years have passed since the historic passage of Bill C-311, yet only three provinces, representing 19% of the Canadian population, have amended their laws to allow for personal transport and interprovincial winery-to-consumer delivery. As such, it was a positive signal that the new Minister of Internal Trade's mandate letter outlined the importance of collaborating with provinces and territories and eliminating barriers to create a stronger, more integrated Canadian economy while fully exercising federal jurisdiction as outlined by section 91.2 of the Constitution Act and Supreme Court decisions on the regulation of trade and commerce.

When the first ministers conference takes place this fall, it is critical that the federal government lead by example and take every measure possible to allow Canadian wineries to enter the 21st century by supporting the implementation of interprovincial winery-to-consumer delivery across Canada.

Our second recommendation calls on the federal government to amend the Excise Tax Act and to eliminate the legislated annual inflation indexation of the excise duty on wine. Canada already has among the highest wine excise duty rates of any wine-producing country in the world, and inflation indexation will continue to negatively impact Canada's wine value chain. This is too rigid a tax policy.

Not only do economic circumstances vary across all regions of Canada, but Canadian wine producers risk losing market share to much larger global players if we pass the increased excise duty cost on to consumers. Canadian wines compete against thousands of wine brands, with imports representing the majority share of both value and premium-priced wines. It is important to reflect upon the size of our industry, considering that each of the top eight wine companies in the United States produces more wine than the entire Canadian wine industry. With a 33% market sales share in Canada, we lack pricing power, and as a result the unintended consequence is a government-imposed producer tax, placing business revenues, wages, taxes and jobs at risk.

Today, the Canadian excise duty on wine is double the rate of our largest trading partner, the United States. To make matters worse, effective January of this year, the U.S. government reduced its excise duty from 37¢ per litre to as low as 2.4¢ per litre by way of an excise tax credit, with full excise paid only beyond 2.35 million litres of wine.

The impact of inflation indexation and changes to a competitive tax policy is why parliamentarians should have the final say on all tax increases. Given the broad economic implications of legislated excise duty indexation on the entire wine value chain from producer to restauranteur, the CVA recommends that the government amend the Excise Tax Act to remove the legislated annual excise duty inflation adjustment.

Thank you very much.

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Thank you very much, Dan.

From the Mental Health Commission of Canada, we have Ms. Bradley and Mr. Mantler.

Welcome, Ms. Bradley.

5:10 p.m.

Louise Bradley President and Chief Executive Officer, Mental Health Commission of Canada

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

We're here today in the middle of beer, wine and spirits. However, in our discussion before we came in here today, I think we all agreed that mental health issues affect all aspects of society. We are here today to talk about a very tough topic, which is suicide. You might be asking yourself, why is the commission here today to talk about suicide when the focus of this committee is Canada's economic growth and competitiveness? We're here to tell you that suicide isn't just a public health crisis. Make no mistake: It is also an economic crisis. Every death by suicide costs the Canadian economy an estimated $1 million.

By 2030, depression will be the global leader in disease burden, and it is a major contributor to suicide. If this isn't compelling enough, consider that for every suicide, 125 people are deeply impacted. Suicide is the leading cause of death among our young people in this country, and that number is five to seven times higher among indigenous youth. We should all be sitting up and paying attention, because indigenous youth are the fastest-growing demographic in Canada.

For 11 years, the commission has been prioritizing the mental health and wellness of Canadians. This work has to continue, but we aren't here talking about preservation of the commission. What's driving us is the fact that suicide rates have remained stubbornly unchanged for decades. Every single day in Canada 10 people die by suicide. There have not been any improvements in many years.

Two years ago, we came to this committee calling for an investment in suicide prevention. We weren't successful, but we took this experience and we learned from it. We're a resilient organization. When our proposal for suicide prevention was turned down the first time around, we were undeterred. We turned to the provinces and sought their partnership. The fact is that we are all invested in the mental health of our communities, and that's what our newest project is all about.

Roots of Hope is a community-based suicide prevention project. It's starting to effect real change in communities such as the Burin Peninsula in Newfoundland and right across the country. We owe these communities help and we owe them healing. All communities deserve roots of hope.

I will now pass the floor over to my colleague, Ed Mantler, who will give you some specifics of the program.

5:15 p.m.

Ed Mantler Vice-President, Programs and Priorities, Mental Health Commission of Canada

Thank you, Louise.

Louise has captured the urgency, the why behind Roots of Hope, and I'm here to talk about the how.

Roots of Hope is the first large-scale community suicide prevention research demonstration project of its kind in Canada. Similar initiatives in other countries have been shown to reduce the incidence of suicide by up to 20%, an extraordinary feat when we consider that Canada's suicide rate has been stagnant for decades.

Roots of Hope is revelatory, because it doesn't presume to know the answers; it starts by asking questions. It builds on what's already working in communities. It offers greater resources, a more formal structure and improved supports, and it works. Today there is no wait-list for mental health and addiction services counselling in Grand Banks, Newfoundland. That's right: There's no wait-list. The provincial government has eliminated the wait-list, which previously was upwards of eight months.

Roots of Hope is taking existing activities and programs and enhancing them. That's why it will never be replicated in exactly the same way in two communities. We believe that's why it works.

Roots of Hope is founded on international best practices: specialized supports like crisis lines, support groups and access to services; training for leaders and physicians, first responders and other gatekeepers; public awareness campaigns; means restriction; and research. To date, the commission has begun phase one of Roots of Hope planning and preparation, with funding secured from three provinces: Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, and Saskatchewan. Funding commitments are pending from provincial governments in three additional provinces.

At the commission, we envision expanding the number of communities participating in the project to fully represent Canada's population and demographics. Federal funding would enable the commission to put down Roots of Hope in all provinces and territories, while participating provinces can use funds to expand existing services.

Let's work together to make Canada a country where Roots of Hope branches out and flourishes from coast to coast to coast.

Thank you.

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Thank you, both.

We are now turning to Spirits Canada, with Mr. Westcott and Mr. Helie.