Canada's fed-prov finance ministers to start deep dive on marijuana taxation

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member
OTTAWA — As the country's finance ministers meet in Ottawa, the Trudeau government should expect to hear concerns about the added burden marijuana legalization could heap onto provincial shoulders.

The agenda for the two-day, federal-provincial-territorial gathering, which starts Sunday, will include discussions on how best to apply taxes on a regulated market for cannabis.

The federal government introduced legislation in April with a goal of legalizing and regulating the use of recreational marijuana by July 2018.

Pot taxation is expected to stay low to ensure the regulated market elbows out illegal dealers.

Details, however, on how the tax revenues will be shared between provinces and Ottawa have yet to be determined.

The ministers are scheduled to start working on a "co-ordinated approach to the taxation of cannabis," says a news release from the office of federal Finance Minister Bill Morneau, who hosts the twice-yearly meetings.

Taxation is poised to emerge as a key focal point of Canada's pot-legalization process.

Since the federal legislation was tabled, several provinces have voiced concerns about how much work will fall within their jurisdictions — from addiction treatment, to distribution, to policing.

For example, Alberta Premier Rachel Notley has warned that provinces will be left with a lot of the "heavy lifting" related to pot legalization, including considerable costs.

In Quebec, Public Health Minister Lucie Charlebois has expressed doubts the tax revenue generated by recreational pot will cover the price tag of preparing for regulation, particularly when it comes to health, security and education efforts.

Ontario Finance Minister Charles Sousa said in an interview he is not apprehensive about cannabis legalization, he just wants to ensure the transition into regulated markets doesn't impose any extra costs on provinces.

"There's going to be a lot of requirements on behalf of the provinces," said Sousa.

"We want to make sure that the proper sharing is there and enough is supported for the implementation of cannabis and the protection (of) our society as we proceed."

Sousa said he will also be keen to hear how his counterparts are approaching legalization.

Federal Health Minister Jane Philpott has promised to work with provinces and to commit more resources to cannabis-related needs like public security, policing and educational campaigns.

Philpott's office has also argued that the current system of prohibition is very expensive and legalization could significantly lower the provinces' existing costs.

The trick for Canada's lawmakers will be finding the pricing sweet spot — high enough to cover costs, but cheap enough to squeeze out the illegal market.

The federal government has repeatedly stated its primary goals with legalization are to get weed out of the hands of young Canadians and prevent criminals from profiting from the drug.

In addition to cannabis, the finance ministers will also discuss how to improve information sharing between jurisdictions as a way to address tax avoidance, tax evasion, money laundering and terrorist financing.

They will also focus on the Canada-U.S. trade relationship.

For Quebec Finance Minister Carlos Leitao, the discussions on Canada-U.S. trade, including renegotiation of the North American free trade agreement, will be perhaps the most important issue on the agenda.

"I think the objective is to get to a consensus amongst the provinces and the federal government as to what is it that we think that we should be doing, both in terms of the taxation of cannabis and in terms of our relationship with the United States," Leitao said in an interview.

Bank of Canada governor Stephen Poloz will be on hand to deliver a presentation on the state of the economy.

Sousa said he would also like to hear more about the state of the federal government's infrastructure plan, including its proposed, $35-billion infrastructure bank.

The bank is designed to use public funds as leverage to attract billions more in private investment for large projects.

Senators have been debating whether to split legislative provisions related to the creation of the bank from the government's budget implementation bill.

Follow @AndyBlatchford on Twitter

Andy Blatchford, The Canadian Press
 

cannadan

Well-Known Member
Hey Chris
This is what I sorta got from the article you posted

feds : trust us ..this new prohibition-less policy...will save you money long term

province: "We want to make sure that the proper sharing is there and enough is supported for the implementation of cannabis and the protection (of) our society as we proceed."
OR
province: "we only want the profit portion of legalization and expect to defer all of the costs."



feds: Health Canada has promised to work with provinces and to commit more resources to cannabis-related needs like public security, policing and educational campaigns.
OR
feds: "not to worry we will make the transfer payments fair"

province: "but we don't believe you "
OR
we are " not apprehensive about cannabis legalization, but just wants to ensure the transition into regulated markets doesn't impose any extra costs on provinces.


feds : also on the table
OR
" tax avoidance, tax evasion, money laundering and terrorist financing."

province: moving along
OR
They will also focus on the Canada-U.S. trade relationship.
 

CalyxCrusher

Well-Known Member
They just want their cut. With the money saved no longer arresting, processing, and housing non violent drug offenders they could figure something out rather easily Im sure.
 

BobCajun

Well-Known Member
They just want their cut. With the money saved no longer arresting, processing, and housing non violent drug offenders they could figure something out rather easily Im sure.
The only people they wouldn't be arresting are those with 30 grams or less and kids under twelve with less than 4, which would result in little kids doing the deliveries of 1/8ths to those between 12 and 17. I guess it's a make work project for kids. Aside from that, same policing costs. Besides, they could just voluntarily not prosecute 30 grams or less and save the same money without the legalization, like they do in Vancouver.

I don't believe the bill will pass anyway actually so it may all be moot. The founders took precautions against majority Govts being able to pass any law they want, or even a majority Govt combined with some collaborators like the NDP. They incorporated a Senate in the system of passing bills, and none of them are NDP, because NDP were never in a position to appoint any Senators. So its 18 Libs against 38 Cons and 35 independents. Here's the page with the stats. Now please read the following;

"After a bill has passed third reading in the House of Commons, it goes through a similar process in the Senate. Once both Chambers pass the bill in the same form, it is given Royal Assent and becomes law." https://lop.parl.ca/About/Parliament/GuideToHoC/making-e.htm

So far it has only passed second reading.
 
Last edited:

gb123

Well-Known Member
The only people they wouldn't be arresting are those with 30 grams or less and kids under twelve with less than 4, which would result in little kids doing the deliveries of 1/8ths to those between 12 and 17. I guess it's a make work project for kids.

.
what crack pot reality do yo live in ...

just askin (:


I don't think its gonna make july next year...which is gonna really hurt those nasty poison shwag lp's...lol
 

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member
Canada Legal Marijuana: Manitoba Finance Minister Says Feds' Timeline 'Feels Rushed'


OTTAWA — Manitoba's finance minister says he's feeling rushed by the Trudeau government's July 2018 timeline for legalizing recreational marijuana and he wants more time.

Cameron Friesen said Monday that with the clock ticking there are still many unanswered questions on issues like public safety, enforcement and finding legal supplies of marijuana.

Provinces, he argued, are responsible for much of the work and the "very real" costs needed to create a regulated cannabis market.

A 'significant shift'

Speaking in Ottawa before a federal-provincial finance ministers meeting, Friesen said he had already raised the idea of an extension with federal Finance Minister Bill Morneau.

Friesen didn't reveal how much extra time he's hoping for, but said he expected the issue to come up during the talks.

"In respect of a July 1, 2018, deadline, we're concerned and we'll express that upstairs — it feels rushed," Friesen told reporters before entering the meeting.

"This is a very significant shift in how we'll operate and we need to have that adequate time to develop the tools that we will need as a province to be able to implement this the correct way."

Finance ministers from across the federation are meeting to discuss several economic issues, including how best to tax Canada's forthcoming legal pot industry.

The federal government introduced legislation in April with a goal of legalizing and regulating the use of recreational pot by July 1, 2018.




Pot taxation is expected to stay low to ensure the regulated market squeezes out the illegal activity.

But lawmakers have yet to offer details on how tax revenues could be shared between provinces and the federal government.

Ottawa has signalled it would like to reach a "co-ordinated approach" with the provinces on cannabis taxation.

Provincial ministers have said they intend to push the feds to ensure they receive a share of pot-related tax revenue that fairly reflects the added costs provinces will have to assume on the road to legalization.

On his way into Monday's meeting, Ontario Finance Minister Charles Sousa insisted he had yet to consider how much pot-related revenue his province could bring in because he's been more concerned about ensuring legalization is handled properly.

"We're going to be asking for fairness and flexibility, so that when there are some possible revenues that come from this that it's properly shared," Sousa said.

'We can't have a half-baked cake here'

Quebec Finance Minister Carlos Leitao said he anticipated "an interesting and calm discussion" about cannabis.

"We want just to make sure that any system that is put in place is equitably distributed amongst the provinces," Leitao said.

"The provinces are going to have to shoulder most of the costs of putting in place regulations, so we should also have most of the revenue."

Friesen said a cannabis working group has been assessing the next steps on key issues like taxation, consumption, sobriety tests and public awareness campaigns.

"We can't have a half-baked cake here," Friesen said. "We have to make sure that all of this analysis is done."
 

Rusher

Well-Known Member
Pot taxation is expected to stay low to ensure the regulated market elbows out illegal dealers.
Wow. They actually think this is possible. Very amusing. Reeking of so much bullshit you could add some vegetable matter, compost it, and grow some great cannabis with it.

Joking aside, they would have to tax it at 1% and it would still be cheaper to buy BM.
 

BobCajun

Well-Known Member
How is anybody who had to put at least a million into it before they even popped a seed ever going to compete with people who didn't have all those requirements? The market is limited, maybe 300,000 Canadians use weed and how many of them would buy from a store? Say 1 in 10, about 30,000 people. How are scores of businesses all going to sell that few people enough weed to make up all those costs?

If it was the US it might be viable, but Canada is not a huge weed market. Most of it goes the the US, which obviously won't happen legally. If legalization goes through, I predict crickets at the stores, at least after the novelty wears off. Liquor businesses make money, but they can export it to the US. If it was just Canadian sales they'd probably be just scraping by. More people use liquor than weed anyway.
 

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member
How is anybody who had to put at least a million into it before they even popped a seed ever going to compete with people who didn't have all those requirements? The market is limited, maybe 300,000 Canadians use weed and how many of them would buy from a store? Say 1 in 10, about 30,000 people. How are scores of businesses all going to sell that few people enough weed to make up all those costs?

If it was the US it might be viable, but Canada is not a huge weed market. Most of it goes the the US, which obviously won't happen legally. If legalization goes through, I predict crickets at the stores, at least after the novelty wears off. Liquor businesses make money, but they can export it to the US. If it was just Canadian sales they'd probably be just scraping by. More people use liquor than weed anyway.
Your numbers are way off. There are 2.3 million cannabis users in Canada. As for retail sales, I think you will see 7 or 8 out of 10 who will buy their product and at least half will use legal sources.
https://www.med.uottawa.ca/sim/data/Marijuana_e.htm
Here are some estimates of cannabis usage in Canada. Clearly these may not be accurate; they were taken from several sources, including the 2002 Report of the Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs (which includes some remarkably innovative thinking); the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse; the Marijuana Party of Canada



  • Estimated number of marijuana users in Canada: 2.3 million
  • Average age of introduction to marijuana: 15 years old
  • Number of people aged 12 - 17 who use daily: 225,0005
  • 10% of regular users develop dependency
  • Annual Canadian consumption: 770,000 kg.
  • Annual production: 2.6 million kg.
  • Amount of domestic production consumed in Canada: 30%
  • Number of grow operations: 215,000
  • Number of people employed in grow operations: 500,000
  • Price of 1 ounce of top grade product (enough to produce 20-50 joints: $250
  • Annual number of arrests for all offences concerning illegal drugs: 90,000
  • Number of reported marijuana offences (1999): 35,000
  • Number of reported marijuana offences in 2001: 71,600 (70% for possession)
  • Annual cost of enforcing marijuana laws (police and courts): $500 million
  • Estimated annual costs associated with substance abuse in Canada: $1.4 billion for illegal drugs; $7.5 billion for alcohol and $9.6 billion for tobacco.
  • Estimated annual costs associated with substance abuse in Canada: $1.4 billion for illegal drugs; $7.5
 

gb123

Well-Known Member
How is anybody who had to put at least a million into it before they even popped a seed ever going to compete with people who didn't have all those requirements? The market is limited, maybe 300,000 Canadians use weed and how many of them would buy from a store? Say 1 in 10, about 30,000 people. How are scores of businesses all going to sell that few people enough weed to make up all those costs?

If it was the US it might be viable, but Canada is not a huge weed market. Most of it goes the the US, which obviously won't happen legally. If legalization goes through, I predict crickets at the stores, at least after the novelty wears off. Liquor businesses make money, but they can export it to the US. If it was just Canadian sales they'd probably be just scraping by. More people use liquor than weed anyway.
reality

the way this entire deal has been handled...

no one told them to spend millions to reap stolen rewards from patients.. LMAO

they followed like sheep and now like lemmings ......
RIGHT OFF THE CLIFFF with help of course ;)
 

torontoke

Well-Known Member
I'd love to see an estimate from the travel and tourism board about how many billions they figure legal mj would earn them.
Surprised tourism isn't pushing harder to soak "visitors"
 

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member
And in other news, senators don't want any new taxes on booze. You know, that popular intoxicant that cost Canadian taxpayers $7.5 Billion/ year in associated costs.
Senators defy Trudeau, propose amendments to federal budget bill
OTTAWA — The Senate voted Tuesday to delete a so-called escalator tax on booze from the federal government's budget, defying Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's insistence that only the elected House of Commons has authority over budgetary matters.

Senators voted 46-32 late Tuesday to accept the report of the Senate's national finance committee, which earlier in the day passed a series of amendments aimed at removing the government's plan to increase the federal excise tax on beer, wine and spirits automatically by the rate of inflation each year.

The amendments came one day after the Senate narrowly defeated a motion that would have carved out provisions dealing with the creation of a new infrastructure bank into a separate bill.

The committee — whose membership includes independent Sen. Andre Pratte, author of the motion to split the bill — did not propose any changes to the infrastructure bank provisions.

The bill will now go Wednesday to third reading debate in the upper house, during which individual senators could opt to propose additional changes, followed by a final vote.

The House of Commons would have to concur with any changes approved by the Senate, something Trudeau has made clear is not in the cards.

But the prime minister's warning that unelected senators have no business re-writing a budget doesn't hold water for some senators. Although the Senate can't initiate a money bill, it does have the right to amend one — or even defeat it outright, as happened in 1993, they note.

"I believe that the Senate does have the right to amend finance bills, not to raise taxes but to otherwise amend them," independent Liberal Sen. Joan Fraser said Tuesday on her way into the committee meeting.

Pratte said he may yet support some amendments to the bill, but won't propose any more himself on the infrastructure bank. The debate and vote on his motion Monday convinced him that a majority of senators have no appetite for changing the bill.

"There's no use working on amendments when you know the majority of the Senate will reject those amendments."

In any event, since Trudeau has been clear that any changes approved by the Senate would be rejected by the Liberal majority in the Commons, Pratte predicted most senators will eventually wind up bowing to the will of the elected chamber.

"It's obvious that this is not one of those special circumstances where the Senate would insist on its amendments," he said. "It's pretty obvious that the Senate would defer to the government's will."

The government maintains the $35-billion infrastructure bank is an integral part of its economic plan. It is to be launched with $15 billion in direct federal investments and another $20 billion in repayable contributions, loans and loan guarantees. The government hopes to leverage up to $5 in private investment for every $1 in government funding to finance what it calls “transformational” infrastructure projects.

Pratte and other senators fear the bank’s governance structure could allow political interference in the choice of projects that get funded. They’ve also expressed concern that taxpayers will wind up on the hook for projects that go over-budget or flop.

The amendments to delete the escalator tax on alcohol were proposed by Conservative Sen. Elizabeth Marshall.

At a Senate committee meeting last week, Finance Minister Bill Morneau appealed to senators to stop referring to the provision as an "escalator." He argued that it would actually result in the tax remaining constant, "in real terms," once inflation is taken into account.

However, a number of senators expressed concern that the automatic yearly tax hikes would potentially devastate many small Canadian breweries and wineries.

Joan Bryden, The Canadian Press
 

BobCajun

Well-Known Member
See how easy it would be for the Senate to defeat the Cannabis bill? There was no public referendum on rec Cannabis legalization. It's the Liberal govt foisting it on the nation. It would be like if tobacco was illegal and the govt suddenly decided they would make it a legal commercial item, the pretext being to keep it away from kids and to keep people they don't happen to like from making money from it. Everybody would say hey UN, look at this, our govt is trying to kill us, wtf? Where can we flee as refugees?
 

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member
See how easy it would be for the Senate to defeat the Cannabis bill? There was no public referendum on rec Cannabis legalization. It's the Liberal govt foisting it on the nation. It would be like if tobacco was illegal and the govt suddenly decided they would make it a legal commercial item, the pretext being to keep it away from kids and to keep people they don't happen to like from making money from it. Everybody would say hey UN, look at this, our govt is trying to kill us, wtf? Where can we flee as refugees?
Except the senate is FOR cannabis legalization.
https://sencanada.ca/content/sen/committee/371/ille/rep/summary-e.pdf
 

BobCajun

Well-Known Member
That was in 2002 and the pdf also said "only offences involving significant direct danger to others should be matters of criminal law". So what about all those people with more than 50 grams of weed on em? What was the danger there? But I wouldn't be surprised if the Senate backs the bill, being a bunch of useless pieces of crud and all.
 

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member
That was in 2002 and the pdf also said "only offences involving significant direct danger to others should be matters of criminal law". So what about all those people with more than 50 grams of weed on em? What was the danger there? But I wouldn't be surprised if the Senate backs the bill, being a bunch of useless pieces of crud and all.
So now backing legalization makes them useless pieces of crud? You'd rather it stay illegal so it doesn't interfere with your income? I'd rather my kids not face charges for possession and consumption. Might be time to go legit, Bob, they aren't going to stall legalization to aid your finances.
 
Top