Finance Committee on Feb. 4th, 2020

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you very much to our witnesses.

I would have liked to ask you each some questions, because you have all presented some interesting things. Unfortunately, I don't have enough time.

Let me start with Mr. Cimon and Ms. Macé.

You have fully explained all the benefits of having social and affordable housing, including the effects on the health and quality of life of the people who need it.

How much does it cost to provide services to someone who is homeless? That is the choice we are dealing with. If we provide funding to build affordable housing, we will not have money to pay for such services.

[Éric Cimon]

I don't have the exact figure on the connection between a person's health and investment. It varies. However, clearly, the benefits are huge in the long term.

Let's take the example of a family living in a housing unit that is too expensive, inadequate and substandard. Parents often have to work two jobs to pay the rent, which prevents them from helping their children with school, and their children's education takes a hit. In addition, poor quality housing can cause health problems, because of mould, for example. The children's ability to learn is therefore compromised.

Furthermore, it has been proven that these people are twice as likely to be homeless and to have a poor education, which leads to lower quality jobs. They are prevented from reaching their potential. Instead of becoming taxpayers who participate in our country to their full potential, they end up becoming burdens because the problem has not been addressed.

If we want to be successful in solving our labour problems and our technological challenges, we must ensure that everyone can participate fully. At the grassroots level, they must be able to keep a roof over their heads, to feed and clothe themselves. If we let them have proper housing, the rest will follow.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you very much.

I'll now turn to Madame Hanson and Madame Grynol.

Thank you very much for your presentations.

Madame Hanson, I had no idea of the extent of diabetes in this country. I would like to ask you what the cost is of not acting. If we don't put in place adequate financing for diabetes 360°, how many lives will be lost in a given year? What is the impact on our health care system? What is the impact of not acting?

Madame Grynol, I'll ask you the same thing. You have very eloquently spelled out the impacts right now of the web giants basically having a free-for-all. They can get around an income tax system and not have to pay all of the obligations that we pay as Canadians. What is the cost of not acting, if the budget does not respond to the needs of putting in place a tax system for the web giants? They have gotten off for free.

Perhaps each of you could answer those questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

You have only two minutes to do it. We have a number of other questioners here, and we have to get them on. Be as quick as you can.

[Kimberley Hanson]

The cost is significant. It would mean that 110,000 people every single year would develop type 2 diabetes, who otherwise don't need to. They would have emergency hospitalizations. They would have amputations, and 7,500 of them a year would die. They would leave the workforce early. They would have higher costs of benefits for their employers. They would not pay the same amount of tax.

Very simply, I don't see how we can sustain the current levels of expenditures. As I mentioned, we'll spend $30 billion in direct health care costs associated with diabetes in Canada this year, and that rate is growing at 40% per decade. Within another decade, we'll be paying well over $40 billion, which I think is pretty close to the full federal transfer payments. It's absolutely not tenable.

[Susie Grynol]

We would not have a strong climate for people to continue to build hotels in Canada, not to mention the impacts on the 300,000 people in our country employed by hotels. If you look at the revenue that would be generated for the government with the example of Airbnb alone, you'll see it's $100 million.

The social services that we enjoy in Canada shouldn't be on the backs of the very Canadians who are investing in our country and choosing to build infrastructure here and to invest in jobs and job creation. I would say that the cost is significant.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll run about 10 minutes over, if we can, to get our questioners on.

I'll go to Mr. Cumming first and then over to Ms. Koutrakis.

[James Cumming, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is for Mr. Van Wielingen. Thank you for taking the time to be here today. I know you're very busy.

I appreciate your framing the tremendous work the energy sector has done to focus on cleaner energy, to be competitive and to lower its carbon footprint. All that being said, despite the great work they've been doing, there's been a large exodus of capital out of the country. I'd like you to comment a bit on what federal policy could be changed or introduced to not only stem the flow but see a reinvestment into this very important industry for Canada.

[Mac Van Wielingen]

Thank you very much.

I'll just speak very openly. First and foremost, what we need is a relaxation of the very intense and often quite hostile rhetoric across this country on the part of certain provinces towards the western producing region in Canada and, indeed, from the leaders of the national parties. That in itself has created a real problem.

Our investors are saying to us that they believe Canada's energy sector faces a unique structural risk, which is that it's under-represented in national policy and related decision-making. They can invest elsewhere. They can invest into companies within the oil and gas sector that are in the same business and don't have that kind of risk. That's a point we've heard over and over, unfortunately. Eighty per cent of our investors are in fact international and are some of the largest and highest-quality investors in the world, and they are incredibly discouraged.

One other point I'm going to make, which few people are really aware of, is that the entrepreneurial and independent sector in Canada has been crushed. In 2014, there were 139 listed public Canadian independent oil and gas and energy companies, and about one half of them are going through some form of insolvency event. Another 20% are getting close to that. There has been a $100-billion loss of value just in those companies alone. These are companies that are run by Canadians, and many of the investors in fact are Canadians. There really has been a wipeout.

Your question is a fantastic one. Quite frankly, I wish I had my five very specific recommendations to really turn around the oil and gas sector in Canada. There are a number of things, but we have to let go of the hostility. We need to find a unifying vision. We need to understand that the energy transition we're in is long-term, over multiple decades. We need to see the importance of Canada's energy sector to all of Canada, and we need to preserve it in a competitive position, which means, as some of the other witnesses have been saying, that our regulatory decision-making needs to be fair and efficient.

[James Cumming, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Do I have more time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Yes, go ahead.

[James Cumming, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Ms. Grynol, on the program you're talking about, with Airbnb and others, what's going on in other jurisdictions? Are the recommendations you're making consistent with what we would see in other jurisdictions?

Second, we've heard from some groups about the competitiveness of tour groups coming into Canada and the expense of the GST with outside tour groups. Is that a major issue for your hotel groups?

[Susie Grynol]

On the first issue, of what other jurisdictions are doing, I'll break it down. On the revenue side, the corporate income tax side, this is a world conversation. We certainly have seen movement on this from other countries. Most recently, France and Great Britain have been looking at this and have made commitments to move forward on the taxation on the revenue piece. Canada also signalled its commitment to use the same approach.

Now, there are international dynamics at play that need to be considered, but certainly there needs to be leadership from the federal government in Canada, and we're well poised to take that leadership. We would not be out of lockstep with other countries. We would be leading the charge.

On the GST piece and other jurisdictions, with the way our tax system is structured, I can merely compare us to other jurisdictions in Canada. We have provinces that are moving on this already in the absence of the federal government applying it.

On having GST applied at the platform level, there is a precedent in the Uber industry, in the taxicab industry. We know it works; people woke up and took Uber the next day. Governments got the revenue they needed and it levelled the playing field, so there is already a precedent for it. It works, and we are seeing that same type of tax application on the GST side in other countries as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you.

We'll go to Ms. Koutrakis. Then I will have a quick question, and we'll close.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Mr. Chair, I will be sharing my time with my colleague Stéphane Lauzon. I'll go first.

Thank you all for being here today.

My question is for Ms. Hanson. Like many of us here, I have heard from my constituents regarding the diabetes situation in our country. Thank you for sharing those statistics. I have some statistics as well. Over 90% of Canadians living with diabetes have type 2 diabetes, and over 45% of those individuals are seniors. That population is increasing as time goes by.

Health Canada cites diet and exercise as the biggest preventive measures against type 2 diabetes. What recommendations can you provide our government on addressing type 2 diabetes among Canadian seniors?

[Kimberley Hanson]

Thank you very much for your question.

I think that prevention is a very strong opportunity and a big part of where we see a lot of the benefit of diabetes 360°. It contains a number of recommended actions to improve the environment in which we all live, so that fewer of us are likely to develop type 2 diabetes. That goes from things like ensuring food and income security—because we know that those are key risk factors—to helping build more walkable communities and helping to ensure regular physical activity. All of these things, when implemented, would help to support seniors in Canada who are either at risk of or already living with type 2 diabetes.

We need to make sure that healthy choices for foods and beverages are always available, and that people are able to walk, even when they live in a more remote area, etc. There are a number of measures that we can take to ensure that's possible.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Can you quickly speak to the provincial buy-in and the provincial nature of treatment and disease management on a doctor-to-patient level?

[Kimberley Hanson]

There's a lot of support from the provinces for diabetes 360°. The provinces recognize that they would all benefit from the ability to better share best practices, from better measurement of the burden of the disease and from the ability to have some extra help to improve the patient care pathways in the provinces.

The provinces are working valiantly to address the burden of diabetes, but it's really just a tsunami coming at them. They're struggling mightily to meet the needs of the people who are increasingly being diagnosed, to have them treated by the right health care provider and to cover the costs of both their care and their medications.

There are a lot of challenges that each of the provinces is facing. Some are facing more challenges than others, based on the demographics of their province or other things. Diabetes 360°could really be a framework to help all of them and to make the system more efficient.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Lauzon.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Thank you all for being here.

My question is for you, Mr. Simard. I would like to come back to NAFTA. You got my attention especially when you said that market price instability had an impact. You also talked about unpredictability. These are terms that come up a lot in the industry when we talk about free trade. As you know, it all depends on the cost of production.

Is the agreement we have now better than the one we had before, with a 70% North American share? Could you explain the benefit we get from that?

[Jean Simard]

Thank you for the question.

An agreement like this is always complex. Taken as a whole, it certainly represents a gain at different levels. First, it terminates an agreement at the end of its life, and where we were negotiating with the threat of tariffs hanging over our heads. It is certainly beneficial in that respect.

It is also beneficial insofar as it provides a framework for trade in our industry and trade between Canada and the United States. In fact, we are at the heart of that industrial fabric.

Once we have made sure that we have a framework for trade, it is up to us, Canadians, the government and the industry, to seek greater certainty through the representations that Ms. Freeland or Mr. Trudeau will make to the U.S. to strengthen the perimeter.

The problem we have—

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Let me stop you there, Mr. Simard. This is where I wanted to take you. You are aware that the signature is not the end. That is what I would like to hear you talk about.