Evidence of meeting #36 for Finance in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was funding.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
I have 30 seconds.
What you're asking for, then, is that we make this permanent and that--we're opening negotiations--if the company can take that capital cost allowance, and it's really a deferral of paying taxes to the government, can take that expense, move it back up to seven years to create a loss, so if they pay taxes they get their tax back.... Is that what you really want?
4:20 p.m.
Director, Cement Association of Canada
There has to be flexibility, and for each financial circumstance the--
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
I would agree with you on that.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Hiebert.
October 20th, 2010 / 4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for your time, Mr. Wallace.
My question is for the University Campus Student Stores, Mr. Tabor.
Why was the tariff first adopted, from your understanding, at 10% to 15%?
4:20 p.m.
Manager, Queen's University Bookstore, Campus Stores Canada
The tariff was first adopted in 1998-99 as part of, coincidently, Bill C-32. The policy impact statement was vague then. So the purpose of it, for us, has always been questionable. There's no explanation as to what the intended benefits would be, how they would--
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
It doesn't protect Canadian booksellers or anything like that, or publishers. Is that right?
4:20 p.m.
Manager, Queen's University Bookstore, Campus Stores Canada
No. The benefit would have been to the international distributors on this side of the border.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
How do we know that the price will actually drop? You mentioned that it could save students up to $30 million a year. How do we know that the sellers, your organizations, will actually reduce the prices?
4:20 p.m.
Manager, Queen's University Bookstore, Campus Stores Canada
Well, the market will discipline that. If the prices don't come down, they'll continue to buy them south of the border.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
But there is a bit of a monopoly on campus, so I hear. Generally, these book stores are the only place you can get your textbooks.
4:20 p.m.
Manager, Queen's University Bookstore, Campus Stores Canada
That's inaccurate. Actually, well in excess of 92% or 93% of the books in a typical campus book store are available through Amazon, Chapters online, and a number of others.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
In a timely fashion, when school starts, you need your text books.
4:20 p.m.
Manager, Queen's University Bookstore, Campus Stores Canada
That's correct. That's one of the problems we have with the imposition of the tariff as it forces students to go south, and frequently they don't have their books on time to engage in that rigorous university setting.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
Do you know how much this tax generates to the government in revenue?
4:20 p.m.
Manager, Queen's University Bookstore, Campus Stores Canada
It generates no revenue whatsoever.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
Manager, Queen's University Bookstore, Campus Stores Canada
No, the tariff is collected by private interests that extract the 10% or 15%.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
So there's no loss to the government if we change the regulations?
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
That sounds like a good idea. Thank you.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My first question is for the Canadian Federation of Students. In your first recommendation, you ask that the federal government, in cooperation with the provinces, implement a federal Post-Secondary Education Act that “restores federal funding for post-secondary education to 1992 levels.”
Would you be kind enough to explain to us why it is so important to take 1992 as the base year? Is it because that is the year when the Liberal government of the day started cutting transfers to the provinces?
4:20 p.m.
Chairperson, Canadian Federation of Students
Yes, in fact, it does. It represents a time when the deepest cuts to social spending in Canada were made. For all intents and purposes, we look back at that as being a time when post-secondary education was, for argument's sake, adequately funded.
We also costed out what the expenses would be to roll back tuition fees to that time. Again, for all intents and purposes, the tuition fees, for argument's sake, were reflective of a time when post-secondary education was adequately funded. So the total cost there to the federal government would be $799 million to do that and roughly $1 billion to get ourselves back up to where we were funding post-secondary education according to the demographics at the time.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
One of your first statements was that post-secondary education should become a right in Canada. You said that the present situation is “elitist”.
I know how important it is to make sure that students be able to do post-secondary studies. I come from a family of 10 children with very modest means. Without the very generous system of loans and grants in Quebec, I would never have been able to study at a university like McGill. In any other province, it would have been impossible. So, I can certainly understand the significance of what you said.
Could you be kind enough to explain the meaning of the word “elitist” that you used in your statement?
