Finance Committee on Nov. 15th, 2023

[Jill Verwey]

To refer to an example from the Agriculture Carbon Alliance, for a medium-sized mushroom farm, it would show a snowballing effect. The tax bill in the month of July was $9,000. In the month of January it will be $14,000, with a total annual cost of $150,000 a year. If you escalate that to dollars per tonne, that can be a significant increase over a period. Even on the poultry side, the intended level of $170 would be, in that case, almost $500,000 a year in additional cost.

To answer your question as far as limiting farmers' ability to operate goes, taking that amount of money out of their operations' working capital limits their ability to innovate and improve. I think we can all agree that farming operations have innovated as they've matured as operations, and that given the chance, if we have funds available in our operations, the monies are used to innovate, improve and become more efficient.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

I think that is almost the exact logic the Liberals used with respect to their exemption, primarily for Atlantic Canadians, on home heating fuel. They said it was so expensive that we needed to give people more resources and more time to invest in heat pumps.

I know farmers and know that they are innovative individuals, and if given the proper resources and time, they will do.... No one's closer to the earth than farmers, so I'm wondering if you share my belief that if we give farmers resources and time—not burdening them with a carbon tax and excessive regulation but providing them with freedom—and believe in them, they will do what's necessary to fight the very real challenge of climate change. Do you agree with that?

[Jill Verwey]

I agree 100%.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Thank you very much. I appreciate that, Ms. Verwey.

I'm going to spend a bit of time with you, Dr. Bond, if that's okay.

I'm troubled by your testimony for a number of reasons, one of which is the specific examples you gave, which I have heard over and over again. We have needless regulation and needless expenses, and they have real consequences for Canadians. They are driving up the cost of everything.

Aside from the carbon tax, a big cause of inflation is the federal government and its excessive regulation and spending. You talked about some of the specific costs of approving drugs and otherwise for animals, but what's the impact on the end-user? Who gets hurt? Does that drive up the cost of food? Does that drive up the cost of pet ownership? Explain that to me.

[Dr. Emily Bond]

Definitely. All those costs to bring products into the Canadian market trickle down to the consumer at the end of the day. The consumers of these products are animals, and therefore costs are going to trickle down to the pet owner, or to producers and then to Canadian consumers of food.

We will see drastic increases in the price of products coming into the Canadian market. For pets, we know that the impact on mental health of having a pet is very positive. For producers, there's the cost of the food and bringing these products into Canada. There is also a significant risk there because there are a lot of products that never come to Canada. Then producers and veterinarians have to resort to other methods, such as off-label use, own-use importation and accessing products online that haven't been approved in Canada and therefore come with environmental risks and food safety risks. This has a snowballing effect, so there's definitely risk there and cost.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Lawrence.

Now we'll go to MP Dzerowicz, for five minutes, please.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

I have 1,400 questions for all of you guys, so I'm going to go through them very quickly.

Mr. Roy, a few years ago, a friend of mine went to a conference, and the former prime minister of the U.K., Gordon Brown, was there. He got on stage, and there was a 14-year-old young woman from northern Pakistan in front of him. No one understood what the topic was going to be. Then he started talking, and what he started talking about, because he is very big on education, was this 14-year-old from northern Pakistan taking a university course online. I think it was at one of the Ivy League schools in the U.S. His point was that there's a whole sea of change happening around how we're learning and how colleges and universities are changing.

We all know that universities and colleges are funded by the provinces. One of the things we always ask ourselves is this: What could our federal government do to help support whatever transitions universities and colleges need to make?

There's another thing I've noticed. I can't speak to Manitoba, but in Ontario I've seen a decrease in the amount of provincial funding for universities and colleges. It has forced them to go to international students, and in a very unhealthy way, to support their ongoing operating costs. Is that something you think needs to change?

I think the main question I have for you, just because I don't have a lot of time, is this. What could we do at the federal level to help support learning and help support universities and colleges in the 21st century?

[Alain Roy]

Thank you for your question. There's a lot in there.

I would start by recognizing that while education is in provincial jurisdiction, there's still a role the feds can play. We have the Canada social transfer, which supports funding to post-secondary institutions. I think that needs to continue at a minimum floor of 3% going forward, but in addition, we need data-sharing agreements with the provinces to ensure the funding actually goes to PSE. The share going to institutions has gone down in the last 10 years, with the exception of the province of Quebec, but that's certainly one key way in which the federal government can ensure we are equipped to continue to train the people we need to train.

An interesting coincidence is that our organization is appearing alongside people in the health sector, the agricultural sector and the home builder sector. We have tremendous shortages in all of those areas. We're training most of the nurses and those in allied health. We're certainly training people in the trades and the construction industry. A lot more skilling needs to happen. It needs to be properly supported in agriculture. A lot needs to be done to support a transition to a greener economy, coupled with green skills to support climate-smart agriculture.

There's a lot to be done there, and we need to be properly equipped for that. I think shoring up the CST, ensuring the money actually supports post-secondary education, is a key way to do that.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you so much.

Maybe I'll turn quickly to our nurses association.

The federal government committed $198 billion over 10 years in our budget in 2023. In addition, we signed a $7-billion side agreement with Manitoba. That money goes to the provinces, and it's supposed to be going to nurses, to mental health, to all those things. Is it not getting there? Is there something more we could do to make sure that money is getting where it's supposed to go?

[Darlene Jackson]

We understand that the money comes from the federal government, but we also understand that some of the money that came to Manitoba was used for tax cuts and did not go to health care.

I am a strong advocate of accountability and transparency. I believe we need to have strings attached. If the funding is coming for a specific project, then I believe the provinces need to be transparent, be accountable and provide the information and data the government is asking for.

I work in nursing. Everything we do is based on evidence and data. I believe that is how we're accountable and how we're transparent. I believe the provinces need to be as well.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you.

I have 30 seconds left—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

MP Dzerowicz, you've gone beyond that.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Okay. Just so you know, you've taken away 30 seconds, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you.

We're going to MP Ste-Marie, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Dzerowicz, the chair is very strict with speaking time today.

My question is for Dr. Bond.

In your presentation, you talked about the shortage of the necessary ingredients for a certain treatment. Could you please clarify and explain that again in more detail?

[Dr. Emily Bond]

Okay.

Some changes relate to active pharmaceutical ingredients, specifically those that are very low risk. I am referring to vitamins and minerals.

Those products are often included in certain other products that may be used. In the current context, producers and veterinarians are under a lot of pressure to fight antibiotic resistance. It is because of the new requirements in Canada that we are losing access to the tools that allow us to improve animal health without using antibiotics.

Other countries consider these ingredients to be low risk. In Canada, we are unable to meet the new requirements.

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

You do not have access because the requirements are too high. Is that right?

[Dr. Emily Bond]

The requirements have changed. There are a number of factors.

I do not want to get into the technical details, but one example is the way a building can be audited. The United States and the European Union can accept a non-governmental audit, but Canada cannot. Those audits are often conducted by multinational companies. So the product will be approved by the United States and the European Union, but not by Canada. It is not worth it for the company to invest in a government audit for the Canadian market alone.

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

Let's hope that changes as soon as possible.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Ste-Marie.

We'll now go to MP Blaikie, please.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Roy, when I was a member of the Manitoba education council, there was a statistic that really surprised me. It was that just 20% of employers whose trade was recognized by the council participated in the training of new employees. That means that 80% of employers hired people who had completed their training, but the employers did not participate in their training.

In your opinion, how could we encourage or force employers to participate more in the training of employees in the trades?

[Alain Roy]

That's a great question.

There is certainly work to be done in that regard. Canada already has certain programs that facilitate employer participation in apprenticeship programs, but we need more.

Colleges and institutes try to do their part by maintaining closer ties with employers. Our programs are similar to an advisory committee, which brings together people from industry, employers, recent graduates and current students. Together they determine the kind of skills and training that are needed, make adjustments to programs and determine the need for private sector participation in creating work terms.

There are already some Employment and Social Development Canada programs that support apprenticeship programs, but I think there could be more.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you.

Ms. Jackson, in a similar vein, for nurses, preceptorships are an important part of the training process and are one of the bottlenecks that risk getting worse as more nurses retire from the profession. What are some things you think government needs to do to either maintain or increase access to preceptorships for nurses in training?

[Darlene Jackson]

That's a great question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Give a concise answer, please.