Finance Committee on May 15th, 2019

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay, thank you, all.

Before I go to you, Peter, I have two quick questions.

One is for Mr. Booth on the suggestions that he made on replacing the taxable capital cap with a sliding scale on the SR and ED credit. Does that require a legislative change, from your perspective, or is it a policy change? Can it be done without having to deal with it in the budget implementation act or in legislation?

[Andrew Booth]

I'm not sure of the answer to that question. My understanding is it's a policy change.... I have that wrong. It's a legislative change.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay, it's a legislative change. Maybe somebody can come back to us on how that would have to be done. If you could do that, we'll have a look at it.

[Andrew Booth]

That's something we could follow up on, absolutely.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Ms. Waterous, congratulations on what you're trying to do. I want to ask you a question because I'm in an area where there's a national park. As I'm sure you already realize, national parks are not always easy to work with in terms of their restrictions.

In terms of trying to get where you folks are trying to get in Banff with the Norquay Ski Resort, are there impediments that we can deal with federally or is it running along smoothly?

[Jan Waterous]

Well, as you mentioned, it's definitely challenging working in a national park. The federal group that we, of course, deal with quite regularly now is Parks Canada. I would say that so far our consultation has been very good with them. It hasn't been speedy. It has taken longer than we would have liked, but we do feel some encouragement that it will begin to hasten a bit, that it will get a little faster.

While it is challenging working in a national park, one of the real opportunities for our specific project—given there are so many rules and regulations in Banff and in any national park on how you do things—is to create this laboratory that other communities and towns across Canada could perhaps emulate. It is challenging, but it's also an opportunity to really make sure that it's done correctly.

We're looking at the long game. At the same time, we're very proud of what we've accomplished in the past three and a half years.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay. Thank you for that. I know all about dealing with Parks Canada.

We'll hear from Mr. Fragiskatos, then we'll go to Mr. Poilievre and then to Mr. McLeod.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses. I really appreciate your time today.

Mr. Stratton, as you well know, the chamber recently conducted a members consultation, the results of which made clear that your members are concerned about the issues that we typically hear, and of course will continue to hear from the organization and your members. Those are taxes, regulation, debt and deficit reduction, freer trade, help for small firms, digitalization and training.

I was very interested when I read in the Financial Post, which is arguably the country's leading business paper, and certainly I don't think we can say that it's all too often pro-government or pro-Liberal, which is why the following stood out for me. I'll just read it for the record. It does mention the members consultation, but then pivots to say, “the Trudeau government could make a case that it already is taking the business community's concerns seriously.” As evidence for this it continues by adding:

In the fall economic statement, Finance Minister Bill Morneau promised to get serious about over-regulation and set aside hundreds of millions of dollars to help smaller companies make better use of the country's trade agreements. This year's budget pledged money for rural broadband and various training initiatives.... Much of the deficit is the result of spending on innovation and infrastructure for the purpose of keeping pace in the digital economy and making it easier to get goods and services to [the] market.

When I hear your testimony, I certainly understand the need for government to respond to business and to continue to engage with business. But when we also have the Financial Post coming out and saying that the government is in fact listening to business, is engaging with business and putting in place, and has put in place, policies to address concerns of business, thereby making us more competitive.... You can look at the article itself. The economy is booming, in no small part due to policies that we have implemented in government. That's more of a comment.

I do have a very specific question because the same piece in the Financial Post points to a curious point, which is that the chamber has not put forward a position on critical issues, such as climate change and income inequality. What is the chamber's position on those two? I know you've recently come up with a set of recommendations around election priorities. I would be quite interested to hear what you would be recommending that we do to address climate change.

First of all, do you believe climate change is something that government has a responsibility to attend to? What about income inequality? Are you, for example, in favour of the continuation of the Canada child benefit, tax-free and means-tested? Be very specific there.

[Dr. Trevin Stratton]

To address the first part of your question, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce certainly has a position on climate change and we believe that it does exist.

What our—

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

—and that it's human activity that's primarily responsible....

[Dr. Trevin Stratton]

You know I'm an economist. I'm not sure if I'm in a position to talk to that. But when it comes to the way that it's being implemented, we are layering a number of regulations on top of carbon pricing, which is creating problems for the use of carbon pricing itself. Because one of the benefits, if we were to do that in theory, is that it provides flexibility for businesses to choose how to meet emission standards in whatever ways suit their business model or whatever way they see fit.

If we add other types of regulations on top of that, such as clean fuel standards, and we can list a few of them—

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

With the greatest respect, Mr. Stratton, if you look at our carbon pricing policy, it is not terribly different, let's say, from what California has—

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I think you have to decide what kind of chair you're going to be. When members of the opposition interrupt the responses of witnesses, you're banging your gavel.

Are you going to let the witness finish his answer?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I treat both sides the same.

I'll let Mr. Fragiskatos go with his supplementary—

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Let the witness answer, then.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

He'll have time to answer.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Well, he hasn't had a chance to answer the last question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

He will have plenty of time.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Well, he should do it now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Fragiskatos, you're on.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I always leave it to my honourable colleague to point out issues of decorum at committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Make it a quick question here, though, Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I point to California. You talked about concerns around regulation when it comes to carbon pricing. Our policy is not that different from what jurisdictions such as California have put in place. California is the fourth-leading economy in the entire world.

B.C. is doing rather well economically. They've had a carbon pricing structure in place since 1998.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

You'd better get to the question here, Peter.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Is it the chamber's view that carbon pricing threatens economic doom? Where are you going with this?