fbpx

Author: David Clement

Three things that could save you $1,000 yearly

Imagine if you had an extra $1,000 right now. You could use the money to go on a road trip, buy a few weeks’ worth of groceries or pay a few bills.

The federal government could easily put $1,000 in the hands of Canadian households by abolishing federal laws that lobbyists have secured at the expense of Canadian consumers. Specifically, the government could take on: big cellphone companies, big airline companies and the dairy cartel.

First, consider your cellphone bill. A 2021 study by Rewheel, a Finnish cellphone market research consulting firm, found that prices in the Canadian wireless market “continue to be the highest or among the highest in the world.” Some in industry blame high cell bills on our nation’s large geography and the need to put up many cellphone towers. That does play a part, but readers should note that Australia is also a large country with a small population and their cell bills are less than half of Canada’s.

Canada’s problem is that we simply don’t have enough cellphone companies competing with each other to offer great deals for customers. Our nation is dominated by three large companies — Bell, Rogers and Telus — which also own several smaller carriers, such as Fido, Virgin, Koodo, etc. One reason Canada doesn’t have a strong market is due to the fact that government rules prevent foreign companies from owning no more than 20 per cent of a cellphone company. If we rescinded this rule, we could see companies from allied nations, who don’t present a threat to our national security, enter our market and help push down cellphone prices.

Considering many households spend over $100 per month on cell coverage, a mere 15 per cent savings could add up to nearly $200 per year.

We find the same problem in the airline sector. Federal laws prevent foreign entities from owning more than 49 per cent of an airline that operates domestic routes in Canada. This has left consumers dependent on Air Canada and WestJet for domestic flights for far too long — high prices are once again a consequence for consumers due to federal laws that reduce competition. Travel booking company Kiwi.com notes that Canada ranks 65th globally in terms of flight affordability. Our cost per 100 kilometres travelled is 2.1 times higher than in the United States, 2.8 times higher than in New Zealand and 3.6 times higher than in Portugal.

Rescinding foreign ownership rules could lead to more airlines entering the market and reducing costs for consumers. This could lead to a situation where WestJet and Air Canada suddenly have to compete with Korean Airlines or Delta when flying passengers from Toronto to Vancouver and other domestic routes.

Under a more competitive model, a family that purchased two $500 flights a year could save $150 if prices dropped by a mere 15 per cent.

Federal laws also force Canadians to pay high prices for dairy and poultry products. This is because Ottawa’s “supply management” system decides how much each farmer can produce and how much they get paid. There’s no competition. The end result is that Canadians pay high prices for chicken, turkey, eggs, milk and other dairy products while farmers in those industries get rich. According to Statistics Canada, the average dairy farm in Canada had a net worth of $4.5 million in 2019 while poultry and egg farmers had a net worth of $6.2 million. These are both far higher than most other agricultural farms which operate under competitive models.

According to a 2015 University of Toronto study, Ottawa’s supply management system forced the typical Canadian family with two kids to pay an extra $585 per year for dairy and poultry products. Adjusted for inflation, eight years later, the cost to households for this policy would be much higher at approximately $724.

Thankfully for Canadian consumers, the vast majority of industries do not operate with federal rules slanted so heavily in favour of industry at the expense of consumers. By tackling these three areas of federal policy, the government could save Canadians a large amount of money — something most households could do with right now.

Originally published here

Harm reduction, not zero-risk, is the best alcohol policy

Stigmatizing moderate, low-risk drinking isn’t a viable public health strategy

Since the Centre for Substance Use and Addiction (CCSA) released its new alcohol guidelines in August, headline after headline has repeated its claim that anything more than two drinks per week is seriously bad for your health.

The shifting of the goalposts on alcohol consumption radically changes who is considered a problem drinker. Under the old guidelines of upwards of 15 drinks per week for men and 10 drinks per week for women approximately 85 per cent of Canadian drinkers qualified as responsible. Under the new guidelines the vast majority of Canadian drinkers are now considered to be drinking “beyond acceptable risk thresholds.”

Life is all about taking risks, of course, and some risks are more than worth taking. So what are the actual risks of consuming within the old guidelines? Kiffer George Card, an epidemiologist who teaches health sciences at Simon Fraser University, reports literature reviews that suggest consuming between seven and 14 drinks per week may lower your overall life expectancy by six months to a year on average compared with people who have zero to seven drinks a week.

Given the enjoyment that alcohol either provides or enables, many people will think that level of risk is more than worth it, especially considering the other risks we assume daily without batting an eye, whether it be eating the foods we do, driving the highways or for that matter simply crossing the street.

In setting its two-drink limit the CCSA did not take into account any of the benefits of moderate alcohol consumption, primarily from the role it plays in releasing endorphins and enhancing social bonding. In fact, according to the American Journal of Public Health, limited social bonding is as, or even more, dangerous than most of the major public health issues Canadians face.

Poor social health, as Kiffer George Card points out, is just as, if not more, harmful than smoking, drinking, being obese, living sedentarily and breathing poor-quality air. You might think that after years of rolling lockdowns to curb the spread of COVID public health lobbyists would appreciate the risks associated with a more isolated lifestyle and adjust accordingly. Unfortunately, the neo-temperance approach ignores this very inconvenient truth.

What makes the renewed discussion about alcohol even more puzzling is that it runs directly counter to Canada’s other harm-reduction efforts, which focus on saving lives by removing the stigma of substance abuse. Whether it be safe injection sites, free drug-testing facilities or even the availability of safe supply, the federal government attempts to help those who suffer from addiction, not chastise and stigmatize them.

British Columbia has taken harm reduction one step further with its decriminalization of the possession and use of small amounts of hard drugs like heroin and cocaine. But while some public health officials are trying to remove the stigma from heroin use, others are labelling almost all Canadian drinkers as high-risk and shaming them for what is in fact very low-risk behaviour. The cognitive dissonance is concussing.

For any number of reasons you might enjoy having a glass of wine or a beer or two, and you shouldn’t feel guilty about that, despite what the CCSA may say. Stigmatizing moderate, low-risk drinking isn’t a viable public health strategy. It’s time to put the CCSA’s report back on the shelf. Behind the whisky.

Originally published here

Corporate Canada has been protected from competition for too long. It’s time to put consumers first

Maybe you saw that report by the CBC’s Marketplace the other day on the cost of wireless telephone service in Canada. If so, maybe your fists have not yet unclenched from the little balls of rage that formed as you watched.

Quoting a recent study by the Finnish research firm Rewheel, the report found the cost per gigabyte of wireless data transmission in Canada is “seven times more expensive than Australia, 25 times more than Ireland and France, and 1,000 times more than Finland.”

For example, “scrolling Instagram for five minutes would cost about half a cent in France, while it would cost 20 cents in Canada. Downloading a half-hour show from YouTube would cost eight cents in Ireland and $1.03 in Canada. Downloading an entire season of Wednesday from Netflix would cost about $1.62 in Australia, and $10.22 in Canada.”

File this under shocking, but not surprising: Rewheel’s is only the latest in a string of reports to find the cost of wireless service in Canada is, if not the highest in the world, then certainly among the highest. Neither is wireless the only industry in which Canada enjoys that distinction.

Canadians also pay among the highest air fares, domestic or international, in the world. Using data from travel site Kiwi.com, the Consumer Choice Center found the cost of air travel per 100 kilometres was “2.1 times higher than in the United States, 2.8 times higher than in New Zealand and 3.6 times higher than in Portugal.”

Read the full article here

Time to stop the escalator tax

If you’re like me, this past holiday season was one of relief with a sense of normality. Unlike years prior, Ontario wasn’t in lockdown, or on the verge of one, which meant that finally we could celebrate with our family and friends as we did prior to the pandemic. For many, part of those celebrations include enjoying their alcoholic beverage of choice (responsibly of course), and taking advantage of some much needed time off.

All that said, for those who were holiday shopping, whether that be for gifts, or food, higher prices were prominent across the board. Grocery bills were approximately 11 per cent more expensive in 2022 than they were in 2021, while overall food inflation came in at 10.1 per cent. These are staggering figures, and especially regressive for those with modest or fixed incomes.

These inflationary pressures are the primary reason why the Bank of Canada has been aggressively raising rates, which has drastically increased the cost of borrowing for businesses, and hit hard for anyone trying to qualify for a mortgage, or on a variable rate mortgage.

Unfortunately, the inflationary pain doesn’t end there. Because of the federal government’s escalator tax on alcohol, the price of your favourite drink will increase on April 1 by 6.2 per cent, because the government indexes alcohol taxes to inflation. Add this tax hike to the fact that taxes alone account for around 50 per cent of the price of beer, 65 per cent of the price of wine, and 75 per cent of the price of spirits. This is cruel punishment for the crime of wanting to enjoy an alcoholic beverage and socialize, or relax.

The escalator tax removes that discussion from the democratic process and eliminates consumers from the discussion all together. And by indexing taxation to inflation it uncomfortably punishes consumers for inflationary pressures not caused by consumers themselves.

Now, there are opposing views on the root cause of inflation. On the Conservative side, they’ve argued that inflation is an outcome of poor monetary policy, primarily the Bank of Canada injecting the economy for far too long than the pandemic required. On the other side of the aisle, there is the argument that overall inflation is high because of lingering supply chain issues, and exacerbated by the disruption of Putin’s disgusting invasion of Ukraine. Whatever your view is, it seems incredibly unfair for the government to punish alcohol consumers because the BOC kept their finger on the money printer for too long, or because the pandemic gummed up the global economy with Putin making it worse. 

And ironically, having taxation automatically increase prices puts continued upward pressure on overall inflation, and the longer these inflationary times persist, the more aggressive the BOC is going to have to be to avoid a run away scenario. This is a vicious cycle where inflation indexed taxation fuels the problem of inflation, driving rates higher, making mortgages more expensive, and leaving everyone poorer in the long run, except the federal government.

And when we compare how alcohol is taxed in the United States versus Canada, it feels like we’re rubbing salt in the wounds of Canadian consumers. For the average American, buying a case of beer has $4.12 in taxes associated with it. For the average Canadian, the tax paid on that same case of beer is over five times higher, at $20.31. The federal tax rate on beer in Canada is 2.8 times higher than in the United States, while the average provincial tax rate is over six times higher than the average U.S. state tax rate. Of course, there have to be taxes on alcohol, but do taxes really need to be this high?

The government needs to stop its hammering away at the disposable incomes of Canadians, and give alcohol consumers some much needed tax relief. It’s time to say no to the escalator tax.

Originally published here

The Festivus ‘Airing of Grievances’ was made for Canada

In the immortal words of Frank Costanza — ‘We got a lot of problems with you people, and now you’re going to hear about it’

With pandemic restrictions completely behind us, this holiday season is the first since 2019 in which life is starting to feel normal again. Canadians from coast to coast are shopping again, hosting get-togethers with family and friends and carrying on their family’s holiday traditions.

One tradition that is truly special is Festivus. Festivus was invented in the 1960s by the father of Dan O’Keefe, a writer for the hit 1990s comedy show Seinfeld, and became an O’Keefe family tradition. In a Seinfeld episode of December 1997, the show’s chief curmudgeon, Frank Costanza, father of George, introduced the holiday to the world.

Celebrated every December 23rd, this strange fest usually involves an unadorned aluminum pole (to emphasize its origins in anti-commercialism), a Festivus family dinner, feats of strength and the ever-important “Airing of Grievances,” in which, after dinner, each member of the family explains how all the others have disappointed them over the past year.

Well, speaking on behalf of Canadian consumers, directing my sentiments at our public officials and borrowing the immortal words of Frank Costanza: “We got a lot of problems with you people, and now you’re going to hear about it.”

Canadians traveling out of the country this Festivus may be shocked to learn that we still ration flights from many countries around the world. For some strange reason, and with the exception of 24 countries and the European Union, the number of flights allowed to arrive in Canada from an international destination is arbitrarily decided by the federal government. In a modern, globalized world, that’s unacceptable. Canadian airports and international airlines should be able to negotiate and allocate flights based on demand, rather than decree. If a market-based approach is good enough for 24 countries plus Europe, why isn’t it good enough for all countries? We should let the market — i.e., Canadians — determine where they want to travel to, how often and with what carrier.

If you plan to enjoy an alcoholic beverage over the holidays or at any other time of the year, you’ve got grievances, too. Big ones. Most Canadians don’t realize that on April 1st each year — no joke! — the excise tax on all alcohol increases automatically, having been indexed by law to inflation. With no vote in parliament, this “escalator tax” is slated to rise 6.3 per cent in 2023. Add this programmed tax hike to the fact that taxes alone account for around half the price of beer, 65 per cent of the price of wine, and 75 per cent of the price of spirits and your drink of choice may leave a sour taste in your mouth.

To add insult to injury, if you consume more than two drinks per week, you may now be regarded as a “problematic drinker.” Yes, according to the federally funded Canadian Centre for Substance use and Addiction (CCSA), anything more than two beers in any seven-day period is cause for concern. This is the one-two punch of the growing nanny state: increase taxes mercilessly and then shame consumers for what almost every other jurisdiction in the world considers low-risk drinking.

Finally, if any of your favourite holiday recipes include eggs, milk, chicken or turkey (and how many don’t?), understand that you pay hidden taxes on these items because “supply management,” our archaic system of production quotas and tariffs on imports that significantly limits supply, curbs competition and ensures high prices of supply-managed commodities. Peer-reviewed research shows that supply management adds upwards of $500 to the average family’s grocery bill every year, pushing between 133,000 and 189,000 Canadians below the poverty line. With overall inflation at 40-year highs, now would be the perfect time to get rid of it once and for all.

That’s it for grievances for this year — though only because space is limited: and could somebody out there puhlease do something about that! Merry Christmas and happy holidays, everyone. And a happy Festivus for the rest of us!

Originally published here

Attacks on forestry industry strain credulity

Canadian forest management is an envy of the world, routinely atop the global standings for stewardship and sustainability, writes Yaël Ossowski and David Clement

With an immense land mass filled to the brim with natural resources, Canada is bountiful with energy and industry that provide dividends for its citizens.

Whether that means reserves of oil, softwood lumber, or iron ore used to make steel, responsible use of these resources makes Canada punch above its weight when it comes to economic growth, productivity, and a strong standard of living.

While these jobs continue to power the nation, many environmentalist activist groups — both foreign and domestic — have continued to call our country to task on the sustainable production of our natural resources. And too often, their bombastic and unfounded claims are accepted wholesale by many media outlets.

In only the latest example, the US NGO Natural Resources Defense Council partnered with Nature Canada to release a report making the shocking claim that carbon emissions from the forestry sector are even more than oilsands production.

Instead of applying a critical analysis to a claim that has been rejected by Natural Resources Canada and international experts, The Canadian Press accepted the activist groups’ claim, accusing our own agencies of “using questionable methods to underestimate emissions from the forest industry.”

Even though our government ministries use internationally accepted standards for calculating emission levels from activity, NRDC and Nature Canada aim to paint Canada as a powerhouse, not of responsible resource management, but reckless greenhouse gas emission.

This stands against science. According to the United Nations, Canada’s forest area has remained relatively stable for the last 30 years, despite the surge in forestry industries, wildfires, and clearing for residential use. That means Canada is actually a global leader in replanting and repopulating its forests, especially compared to Brazil, China, and other nations with large forests.

If this is true, why then are activist groups claiming that Canada’s industry providing us with both construction wood and paper (used in now-mandated cardboard food packages) is more of a polluter than oil extraction?

The major claim in the report is that industry emissions must be combined with those from naturally-occurring wildfires, plant diseases, and invasive insects, none of which are understood to be commercial activity undertaken by Canada’s loggers. Rather, these are part of nature’s ordinary life cycles that we can only hope to mitigate and limit, if not prevent.

Considering that The Canadian Press and other outlets that reported on these claims didn’t reject them outright is concerning. But more concerning is what these activist groups seek as a result of their flawed findings.

Just days after the report’s release in October, activists were meeting with senators and ministers to “force the hand of policy-makers themselves,” potentially leading to restrictions and emission limits that would hurt not only Canadian jobs and industry, but also significantly skew our fight against climate change.

It is worth remembering that Canadian forest management is an envy of the world, routinely atop the global standings for stewardship and sustainability.

Cardboard, made from pulp sourced in our forests, is now the destined alternative to plastic for food packaging products, mostly due to restrictions and bans sought by these same groups.

The aim of making Canada a global leader for sustainable climate progress is noble, and one that we should all agree on. However, that must be done with scientific facts and evidence, not the twisting of facts and caution to fit the narrative of heavily funded environmental groups with another agenda.

If our news media aims to both inform and educate our citizens, it will have to do a better job of calling out misinformation on all sides. That is the only way we will be equipped to deal with climate issues going forward.

Originally published here

Why is Ottawa still rationing foreign landings at our airports?

Opening Canada’s skies would help cross-border trade, tourism, investment and knowledge flows

Canada’s national men’s soccer team qualifying for the upcoming World Cup in Qatar was a huge achievement, given that we haven’t qualified for a World Cup since 1986. Although this is a great time in Canada’s sporting history, it won’t actually be easy for fans to go to Qatar to support their team in person, primarily because of outdated regulations that close our skies to international airline competition.

Isn’t it strange in the 21st century that the number of flights arriving in Canada from most foreign countries is still entirely determined by the federal government. That number, which appears to be picked arbitrarily depending on the country in question, isn’t based on consumer demand. In fact, airlines and airports play a role in allocating how many flights can arrive from a particular country only if Canada has an “open skies” agreement with the country. At the moment, Qatar is only permitted to land four flights in Canada per week. That’s obviously not ideal given the (albeit temporary) increase in demand for flights to and from Qatar.

This same arbitrary flight allocation applies to many other countries, among them many popular destinations for tourism and commerce. For example, Dubai in the United Arab Emirates is also hard to get to and from. The UAE is only allowed seven arrivals per week in Canada for both Emirates and Etihad Airlines.

If Canada were to open our skies and accept all the incoming flights the Canadian market could support, Air Canada wouldn’t be Canadian travelers’ only flight option and the resulting increase in competition very likely would bring ticket prices down.

Opening Canada’s skies would also help diversify where foreign flights land. The UAE has its national carriers primarily fly into Toronto, because with only seven Canadian landings permitted per week, it makes sense to prioritize Pearson over the alternatives. But if that arbitrary limit were removed, flights could both arrive and depart from other Canadian cities where market demand is strong enough, though not as strong as in Toronto.

These limitations are in large part why Canada does not rank very well on economy-adjusted air-connectivity. According to the International Air Transport Association (IATA), we ranked 32nd globally, based on pre-pandemic 2019 figures. In fact, despite having world class cities like Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver, we have no cities in the air-connectivity top 20.

Changing how we approach international carriers should be a no-brainer given the immense consumer benefit it would bring. And open-skies isn’t even that radical a proposal: it would mean treating all countries and their national carriers the same way we already treat 23 countries (soon to be 24 with the addition of India) and the member-states of the European Union. For those countries, which include 10 in the Caribbean, the open-skies agreement allows any number of carriers to operate both direct and indirect services between Canada and another country, with airlines choosing the routes they serve, the frequency of their service and the prices of flights, without any restrictions. Simply put, for those countries we let the market and consumer demand decide the frequency of flights, not the federal government. But if a market-based approach is good enough for 24 countries plus Europe, why isn’t it good enough for all countries? We should let the market decide where Canadians want to travel to, how often and with what carrier.

But opening our skies wouldn’t just be a win for Canadian consumers. Growing air connectivity with the world has economic benefits, too. According to IATA, the historic correlation is that a 10 per cent rise in connectivity relative to a country’s GDP is associated with a boost in labour productivity of 0.07 per cent. Not great thrust but certainly worth having.

Opening our skies would help cross-border trade, tourism, investment and knowledge flows. As we all get back to traveling in a post-pandemic world, now would be a good time for Canada to modernize its rules and open our skies for good.

Originally published here

The Real Consequences the Proposed Vaping Flavor Ban in Columbus

Columbus is considering putting an end to the sales of menthol cigarettes and flavored vapes. Although official legislation hasn’t been formally introduced, tobacco-control advocates who are drafting the proposal are claiming a ban would help decrease smoking rates amongst Black people, other groups of color, women, and LGBTQ populations.

Sadly, over 20,000 Ohioans lose their lives to cigarette smoking-related illnesses every year. Considering that studies have shown vaping to be 95% less harmful than smoking and that adults who used flavored vaping products were 2.3 times more likely to quit smoking cigarettes, ensuring that adult consumers in Columbus have access to the vaping products they prefer will ultimately lead to fewer cigarette smoking-related deaths in Ohio. 

It’s estimated that more than 5% of Ohio’s adult population uses vaping products, accounting for over 634,000 Ohioans who have switched to a healthier alternative to combustible tobacco. Banning flavored vaping products will encourage these former smokers to switch back to smoking cigarettes, and will ultimately lead to increases in smoking-related healthcare costs, which are already costing Ohioan taxpayers $1.85 billion annually.

Advocates for the ban claim that it wouldn’t outlaw flavored vaping products or menthol cigarettes within Columbus, just the sale of said products and that consumers wouldn’t be punished for buying products elsewhere and bringing them into the city. Not only would this plan greatly harm small businesses who sell vaping products, but it would also effectively set up a dangerous illicit market within Columbus where bad actors could easily take advantage of consumers by selling them unregulated faulty products which could cause serious health concerns. 

Additionally, although the flavor ban intends to help minority groups of color, the reality of setting up an illicit market is that it will further exacerbate interactions between law enforcement and consumers of these products. One of the most infamous examples of this is the tragic death of Eric Garner, who was killed by police in New York after being approached on suspicion of selling untaxed individual cigarettes. 

Implementing a ban on flavored vaping products and menthol cigarettes within Columbus will have serious unintended consequences. Instead of a ban, more tobacco harm reduction efforts must first be explored such as increasing educational outreach to specific communities as well as encouraging vapes and smoke-free tobacco products as a tool for cessation. 

Elizabeth Hicks is the U.S. Affairs Analyst and David Clement is the North American Affairs Manager with the Consumer Choice Center. 

Ford takes aim at housing gatekeepers

Ontario seeks to reform zoning rules that slow construction and increase costs

Last week Doug Ford’s Ontario government introduced legislation that will seek to rapidly increase homebuilding in the province, primarily by peeling back exclusionary zoning. Premier Ford’s bill will allow for up to three units to be built on a single residential lot without any bylaw amendments or municipal permissions. This allows for the building of basement apartments, garden suites, duplexes, and triplexes on a single residential lot. In addition to allowing these units to be built, the legislation also exempts these units from development charges and parkland dedication fees, which significantly increase the cost of building and are ultimately passed on to buyers.  In a city like Toronto, this could be a game-changer for calming the housing crisis.

Upwards of 70 per cent of Toronto is zoned exclusively for single-family homes, a restriction that significantly limits building options, which in turn constrains the housing supply. The impact of these zoning rules can’t be overstated. A family in Toronto needs an annual income of $280,000 to purchase a detached home, $214,000 for an attached home, $167,000 for a townhome and $148,000 for a condo. But the median income for a couple in Toronto is only $97,700.

Why zoning reform is needed is simple: artificial limits on what can be built keep the housing stock low, which in turn prevents supply from keeping pace with demand, thus putting upwards pressure on home prices and rents. Because of these zoning rules, Ontario has a terrible record for building new homes. Among G7 countries, Canada ranks dead last in population-adjusted housing units per 1,000 people with 424. Ontario, which has only 398 units per 1,000 people, is a major cause of the problem.

Increasing the housing stock would put downward pressure on prices and foster economic growth. Research on zoning rules in the U.S. has shown that, by freezing workers out of high-rent areas like New York and San Jose where their productivity would be higher, local zoning rules lowered U.S. economic growth by fully 36 per cent between 1964 and 2009. There is no reason to assume similarly exclusionary zoning laws aren’t having the same negative impact in Ontario and across Canada.

The benefits of zoning reform aren’t just theoretical. Reform has made housing more affordable in both the United States and Japan. Minneapolis, which abolished exclusionary zoning before the pandemic, now appears to be bucking the trend of rising U.S. rental prices. Rents for one- and two-bedroom units are actually lower in 2022 than they were in 2019. Some of that presumably can be chalked up to having made it easier to build for increased density.

Before the pandemic Japan was building nearly a million new homes per year because of its relaxed approach to zoning. This approach is largely why average home prices in Japan have stayed relatively flat for nearly a decade. Enabling supply to keep up with demand is the keystone of Japan’s success in creating a stable housing market, one where home ownership is feasible and rental prices are stable. On the rental side, from 2008-2018 rent for the average two-bedroom apartment in Tokyo hovered around $1,000 (U.S.) per month. A two-bedroom apartment in Toronto is now more than double the price of an equivalent unit in Tokyo.

Now, for some, the thought of smaller Tokyo-style apartments doesn’t seem appealing. But the point here is that with limited government involvement in the building of new homes the market is able to adjust and build in a way that better meets housing demand. And to really demonstrate the power of supply: Japan’s rental prices were stable without the use of rent control, a policy often touted as a means to curb rising rents.

For those who like the suburbs and want them to stay that way, this bill could work to increase density in high-demand areas like Toronto, while easing housing pressure in surrounding areas. Opening up 70 per cent of Toronto to increased density will help curb the trend to suburban sprawl, as people who prefer to live in these high-demand areas will find it easier to do so.

This new bill takes the issue of chronic housing undersupply seriously by saying “Yes, In My Backyard.” Welcome to Team YIMBY, Premier Ford.

Originally published here

Free up the cannabis market

Removing CBD products from the Cannabis Act would have several immediate benefits for consumers

Last week Ottawa announced that the Cannabis Act, passed in 2018, will finally get its long-overdue mandatory review, which was supposed to take place in October 2021.

Regulators will have to answer some tough questions regarding Canada’s legalization experiment. As Liberal MP Nathanial Erskine-Smith conceded: “We didn’t get it perfect, or exactly right the first time, and this is an opportunity to make sure we get it right going forward.” One of the core priorities of the expert panel reviewing the act is better understanding how the legal market can stamp out the illegal market, which is still prominent.

According to the Ontario Cannabis Store’s own report, the legal market has made significant gains since 2018 but still only accounts for 59 per cent of all cannabis consumed. So what can be changed in the Cannabis Act to target the 41 per cent of cannabis that continues to be supplied by the illicit market?

First, CBD products, those containing cannabidiol but either no or very little THC, which is what produces the high, should be removed from the cannabis act altogether. Products that are not intoxicating and have a significantly lower risk profile shouldn’t be treated the same as cannabis products that include THC.

Removing CBD products from the Cannabis Act would have several immediate benefits for consumers. The first is that it would exempt CBD products from the heavy-handed marketing, branding and plain packaging restrictions set out in the Cannabis Act. Regulating cannabis the same way as tobacco is regulated was a mistake, given the important differences in risks among the various cannabis products. But regulating CBD products like tobacco is downright comical. To end the joke, we should treat any CBD product with a THC concentration of less than 0.3 per cent (the U.S. legal standard) as a natural health product and exempt it from the rules and regulations of the Cannabis Act.

On the producer side, removing CBD products from the Cannabis Act would help licensed producers make use of the glut of cannabis that ends up being destroyed as a result of oversupply — an oversupply that fails to lower prices because excise taxes create an artificially high price floor, while the excise tax stamp regime landlocks finished product within provincial boundaries. Fully 26 per cent of the legal cannabis produced in Canada in 2021, 426 million grams, ended up being destroyed because of oversupply. If CBD were removed from the act, this excess cannabis could be used to create CBD products, which could be sold at other retail outlets, not just licensed cannabis stores, thus significantly expanding buying opportunities for consumers.

On marketing and branding, the rules should be re-written to mirror what Canadians accept for alcohol. Cannabis is no more and arguably much less dangerous than alcohol, so its sale to adults shouldn’t be more strictly regulated. This wouldn’t just be for consistency’s sake, either. People who buy their cannabis in the illicit market need to be aggressively marketed to if the government wants to keep growing the legal market. Marketing and branding rules that are far less paternalistic than those currently in place would be a huge step forward in allowing retailers and producers to reach consumers still buying outside the legal regime.

Regarding product and price, some simple steps would go a long way. First, the 30-gram limits on both purchase and possession in public should be scrapped. There are no such purchase restrictions for alcohol: an adult of legal age can walk into a liquor store, more often than not owned by the government, and buy as many bottles of liquor as they please. If consumers can buy more than a lethal dosage of alcohol from a government store, they should be able to buy more than 30 grams of cannabis from legal retailers.

Regarding edibles and beverages, the act should either remove the 10mg THC restriction or significantly increase it. This restriction gives a leg-up to the illegal market, where edibles are often 10 to 20 times more potent. If legal edibles are to compete, they have to be comparable products.

Finally, as far as price regulation goes, the legal market needs to be much more competitive. Significantly simplifying and lowering the excise tax would help cannabis to be produced at lower costs and sold at lower prices, thus making it more attractive for those still buying illegally. Replacing the $1/gram minimum tax with a flat percentage would give a significant competitive boost to the legal market.

It is worth celebrating that 59 per cent of the cannabis market is now legal but serious changes are needed to crack down on the remaining 41 per cent. If the Cannabis Act is not amended to make the legal market more consumer-friendly, efforts to grow the legal market may fail.

Originally published here

Fun Police

ConsEUmer Podcast

Consumer Choice Center Cast

Follow us

Facebook-f Twitter Instagram Linkedin Youtube Spotify

Contact Info

712 H St NE PMB 94982
Washington, DC 20002

info@consumerchoicecenter.org

© COPYRIGHT 2024, CONSUMER CHOICE CENTER

Scroll to top
en_USEN
it_ITIT pt_BRPT fr_FRFR es_ESES de_DEDE en_USEN