Evidence of meeting #174 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was students.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Ronald Smith  As an Individual
Eden Hildebrand  As an Individual
Tyson Brown  As an Individual
Samantha Carson  As an Individual
Vanessa Vittoria  As an Individual
Matthew Lahey  As an Individual
Afraa Mustafa  As an Individual
Lawrence Yeh  As an Individual
Irena Smith  As an Individual
Peter Fragiskatos  London North Centre, Lib.
Leona Alleslev  Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, CPC
Brian Kingston  Vice-President, Policy, International and Fiscal Issues, Business Council of Canada
Laura Tamblyn Watts  Chief Public Policy Officer, Canadian Association of Retired Persons
Ann Decter  Director, Community Initiatives, Canadian Women's Foundation
Karen Campbell  Program Manager, Community Initiatives, Canadian Women's Foundation
Mary Marrone  Director, Advocacy and Legal Services, Income Security Advocacy Centre
Steven Liss  Vice-President, Research and Innovation, Ryerson University
Rhonda Lenton  President and Vice-Chancellor, York University
Jennefer Laidley  Research and Policy Analyst, Income Security Advocacy Centre
Chris Summerville  Co-Chair, Canadian Alliance on Mental Illness and Mental Health
Martha Friendly  Executive Director, Childcare Resource and Research Unit (CRRU)
David Agnew  President, Seneca College, Colleges Ontario
Michael Smith  National Mergers and Acquisitions Leader, Tax, Deloitte Canada
Roberta Jamieson  President and Chief Executive Officer, Indspire
Katie Walmsley  President, Portfolio Management Association of Canada
Theo Heldman  Chair, Tax Committee, Portfolio Management Association of Canada
Maya Roy  Chief Executive Officer, YWCA Canada
Craig Alexander  Partner and Chief Economist, Financial Advisory, Deloitte Canada
James O'Hara  President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadians for Fair Access to Medical Marijuana
Mark Nantais  President, Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association
Allan Rewak  Executive Director, Cannabis Council of Canada
Jonathan Lund  Vice-Chair, Hotel Association of Canada
Keith Currie  President, Ontario Federation of Agriculture
Tim Hudak  Chief Executive Officer, Ontario Real Estate Association
Philippe Lucas  Vice-Chair, Cannabis Council of Canada
Alana Baker  Director of Government Relations, Hotel Association of Canada
Rishi Jain  University of Windsor
Adam Hopkins  First Nations Technical Institute at Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory
Matt Smith  ONE Campaign
Laura Seguin  ONE Campaign
Sarah Fairweather  ONE Campaign
Sasha Caldera  Canadians for Tax Fairness

2:15 p.m.

Chief Executive Officer, Ontario Real Estate Association

Tim Hudak

Thank you very much, Mr. Fergus.

I apologize for my lack of French.

To your question about home ownership rates and what would be ideal, it's higher. Higher is better. I'm just somebody who, in my current public life, and now as CEO of the Ontario Real Estate Association, believes in setting goals. If you don't set a goal, if you don't measure, you're just practising.

What seems reasonable is that 70% because we were on the cusp of that only a couple of years ago, and then 75%. If we get to 75%, I would be happy.

2:15 p.m.

Liberal

Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

Yet Canada is the industrialized country with the highest home ownership rate. Why do you want an even higher rate? Is it evidence-based, or is it your instinct telling you that Canada deserves a rate of 80% or even 100%? Is that even desirable?

2:15 p.m.

Chief Executive Officer, Ontario Real Estate Association

Tim Hudak

It's pretty sweet for my members.

To the question about how high do you want to go, we are always on an upward trend, that's the great part of our story, and 70%, and then to 75%, seems like a reasonable goal to achieve. You're right, our home ownership rates are higher than the Americans. There are a number of European and Asian jurisdictions where home ownership rates are higher. I just believe fundamentally that homeowners make for stronger communities. There is a stream of evidence that homeowners' children, all else constant, tend to do better in school, tend to do better in the workplace. I know as a man, I changed when I owned my first home. I cared more about my neighbour, I got more involved in the community and volunteering. I think 75% would strengthen Canada, but it also seems it's reasonable, considering the upward trend that we are on.

2:15 p.m.

Liberal

Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

I come from a province where the enthusiasm for home ownership is not the same. Our rate is well below the national average, but it seems to be working quite well. I know that, compared to other generations, newcomers and millennials are less and less interested in home ownership. There you go. Thank you.

I would like to ask Mr. O'Hara a question, and perhaps Mr. Lucas can also answer it, since he provided some figures. Are we in a transition period? You are saying that access is important for people who need cannabis for medical purposes. I agree with that. However, why don't those people, who already had the right to use cannabis for medical purposes when there was no legal framework, consult their doctor to get a prescription?

2:15 p.m.

Vice-Chair, Cannabis Council of Canada

Philippe Lucas

Are you asking me why they do not talk to their doctors to—

2:15 p.m.

Liberal

Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

Why do they not ask for a prescription that allows them to use cannabis, which is now a drug that comes with a drug identification number?

2:15 p.m.

Vice-Chair, Cannabis Council of Canada

Philippe Lucas

I'm going to answer the question in English. I can answer it in French as well.

Patients, we hope, will continue to have that relationship with their physicians. We're concerned that this relationship will break down if they're having to pay additional taxes, and if there's no difference between what they're paying to get it from a pharmacy or from a licensed producer than getting it from a corner store. I think they really benefit from that engagement with their physician.

At Tilray, we have 150 pediatric patients. A lot of these patients suffer from seizure disorder, in some cases with over 100 seizures a day. I would never want to tell one of those families to go down to the corner store or to the LCBO equivalent to pick up their medicine. It's just not going to be the same experience as going through their physician to be able to get medical cannabis.

At the same time, what we're about to do is charge that same family the same price, the same taxation rate, for their medical cannabis to stop seizure disorder as we're going to charge a 25-year-old going into the store to pick up a few grams for the weekend, and that's the problem. We're not recognizing this medical need. We're not recognizing the financial challenges that come when they're accessing a medicine that isn't covered by our provincial registries right now, and ultimately that means we're going to have worse public health and personal health outcomes.

That is really my main concern.

2:20 p.m.

Liberal

Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

Mr. Lucas, I do not want to give you the impression that I am against cannabis use. I am not, far from it. If some people want to, why not? It has been quite common for a long time.

Some people previously had access to cannabis when there was no legal framework. Now such a framework exists. Some people have prescriptions from their doctors, as, in the doctors' opinion, it is important that they take cannabis for their pain. In cases like that, it is quite normal that those consumers would not pay the excise tax. However, people who use cannabis recreationally should pay that tax, in the same way as they do for alcohol or cigarettes. That is normal.

I do not understand why you are opposed to people who used to get cannabis outside the legal framework now being in the system.

2:20 p.m.

Vice-Chair, Cannabis Council of Canada

Philippe Lucas

It is not a problem for me.

We're not opposed in any way to taxation of recreational cannabis. We think it's completely appropriate that there be some taxation for recreational—

2:20 p.m.

Liberal

Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

Okay. Why would those people not sign up officially? Then they would be able to get their cannabis without having to pay excise tax.

2:20 p.m.

Vice-Chair, Cannabis Council of Canada

Philippe Lucas

Although you may not think so, they are going to have to pay the tax. With the way the act is written, they are going to pay all the same taxes paid by those who use cannabis recreationally.

2:20 p.m.

Liberal

Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

I think I understand that people with prescriptions will not pay the excise tax on the cannabis-based products that have a drug identification number, a DIN.

2:20 p.m.

Vice-Chair, Cannabis Council of Canada

Philippe Lucas

They will be paying it, because all cannabis-based medications in Canada are taxed in the same way as recreational cannabis. Please forgive me if we have not been clear on that. Under the new Cannabis Act, the taxation for recreational cannabis and medical cannabis is identical.

2:20 p.m.

Liberal

Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

Excluding cannabis-based products with a DIN.

2:20 p.m.

Vice-Chair, Cannabis Council of Canada

Philippe Lucas

The problem is that getting a DIN for those products will take four or five years. As we speak, 300,000 Canadians use medical cannabis and they are going to be paying the same taxes as those using it recreationally on the weekends. That is what is unfair.

2:20 p.m.

Liberal

Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

At some stage—

2:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Are you clear? You are way over time, but are you clear on the policy? As long as you're clear we're all right.

2:20 p.m.

Liberal

Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

That is clear, but—

2:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Before I go to Leona, I do want to go to Mr. Currie.

One of the things that not a whole lot of people recognize is that President Trump's trade actions probably are going to be more harmful to Canadian farmers than they are to American farmers. Trump has put in a $12-billion emergency fund to assist those who were impacted by lower prices as a result of his trade action. The problem that most Canadians don't realize is that, even though we may be able to fill the market that's been left open as a result of a country not buying American product, our prices are based on American prices, Chicago Mercantile or whatever.

Could you give us some information on how our safety net so-called, risk management programs, would work, and if they are adequate to fill what really is almost the same as a disaster? Hog prices have just gone through the floor.

2:25 p.m.

President, Ontario Federation of Agriculture

Keith Currie

You're absolutely correct. Thank you for raising this. It's been interesting listening to the conversation.

Outside of yourself, we're looking at urban representation around the table and not having a reason to understand the world that I live in and the world that I represent, which is the largest industry in the country with one in seven jobs involved.

Our pork producers are losing $50 a head. Our cattle producers are losing $100 a head. Our soybean markets are depressed because of a tariff war between China and the U.S., and that's through no fault of our producers.

You mentioned the business risk management programs, and essentially they are not working now, prior to any agreement being made. We've been trying to work with the federal Minister of Agriculture and his staff to revamp those business risk management programs because they are not adequately supporting and servicing the farmers in Canada today. They will even less adequately support our farmers with respect to any losses that come out of either the trade deal or the tariff war that's suppressing markets, as you mentioned in your comment.

We need to figure out some way to better change those programs to better reflect the needs of Canadian farmers. We need to find out what kind of compensation may be available, or should be available, for supply-managed sectors in this country. It's big.

I'm happy that my friend, Mr. Hudak, brought up the housing issue, because there is a world beyond urban Canada and we've been touting for years the economic development aspect of what rural Canada can bring.

All we need is that key infrastructure support to get things going. Our transit system is roads and bridges. We don't have subways, streetcars or buses. We need that key transportation infrastructure money. We need rural natural gas expansion, particularly here in Ontario where we are vastly underserved, but also throughout the country. We want broadband treated much like electrification was in the 1930s—as an essential service—because we have families going to Tim Hortons and McDonald's at night, taking their kids to complete their homework because it's their only option for broadband, and that's just wrong.

Our businesses are competitive, but what we're looking for are clients of Mr. Hudak's organization to be coming into rural Ontario to buy affordable housing at a much lower rate, where they can bring their high-skill jobs. I need them to have those businesses to support my business. It's not just about on the farm, although we do need workers on the farm. I need all the support systems out there. We are in a high-tech industry. We have a lot of precision technology and we don't have the support staff or support service industries for it.

We are getting that double whammy of a lack of investment. The 2017 federal budget was great for announcing long-term infrastructure spending in rural Canada. Since that time we've had nothing but infrastructure spending in urban Canada. We're standing there thinking, come on, guys, one in seven jobs in this country is agriculture-related.

As important as our auto industry is, that's 140,000 niche jobs—correct me if I'm wrong—and just in Ontario alone we have 830,000 jobs in the agri-food industry. There are 220,000 jobs just in the dairy industry in Canada—about double the size of the auto industry—but we always have to give. We are always sacrificed. It's probably because we're resilient and we just carry on anyway, but it gets a little discouraging.

Give us the support tools that we need, and we will grow this economy and make it strong and vibrant. For those of you who are worried about recessions, look to agriculture because we're recession-proof. We just continue to grow each and every year. Despite what goes on in the rest of the industries around the world, agriculture is always there.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

2:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Thank you.

Ms. Alleslev, go ahead for seven minutes.

2:25 p.m.

Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, CPC

Leona Alleslev

I am not from a rural riding, but it doesn't mean that I don't have constituents who benefit from the agriculture sector and who are concerned. I have had a number of emails asking me about the impact of this new agreement on food prices and all that kind of stuff.

I'm wondering if you could give us your best guess—I know you probably haven't had a chance to really look at it—as to what kind of impact this is really going to have on everyday Canadians in terms of the agriculture sector.

2:30 p.m.

President, Ontario Federation of Agriculture

Keith Currie

In the short term we're not going to see much. The greatest impact initially is on the supply-managed sector. Essentially what this deal has done—

2:30 p.m.

Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, CPC

Leona Alleslev

That's dairy, eggs and a whole bunch of things.

2:30 p.m.

President, Ontario Federation of Agriculture

Keith Currie

It's feathers and dairy, yes.

Essentially, when you combine this with CETA and CPTPP, we're looking at between 10% and 11% increased market access. Those agreements have happened in the last three years. What that means is not so much that people are going to lose quota necessarily or that they're going to lose price on what they're selling their product for, but that it's going to stymie their business growth going forward. That growth is going to be filled by the imports coming in.

It's pretty unfair to ask businesses just to stay stagnant. That's where it's troubling. On top of that is the investment, because if you look at this area we're sitting in right now, in the GTHA, there are some 500,000 processing jobs. That's further value added. That's where the stymie is going to be when you combine the increased market access coming in, which will primarily be going to processed foods, and the potential lingering import tariffs on aluminum and steel. Companies are now putting the brakes on investment in processing facilities, which is what we desperately need behind the farm gate in order to be healthy as well. We need those further value-added jobs.

We need to figure out how to alleviate that. We need better border control and identification of products. For example, there's a tremendous amount of spent fowl coming in. Spent fowl, for those of you who don't know, is what happens to layer chickens after their laying life is over. They turn into spent fowl, which typically goes into soup, etc. They're being packaged as meat you buy in McDonald's and in restaurants and everywhere else. They aren't being verified properly at the border. Those kinds of things need to have some control on them as well.