Evidence of meeting #90 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was industry.
A video is available from Parliament.
President, Canadian Association of Mutual Insurance Companies
Exactly, we're saying not to do any of that. We prefer not to direct what's up there. We're saying it could be improved, but we would prefer not having it improved over losing it all. We're asking you to take a second look and not do anything, please, so we can keep it the way it is.
Liberal
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
Thank you, Chair.
Professor Rivers, my question is for you, although I'll ask Mr. Pepin to speak as well if there's time. In Mr. Pepin's remarks, he cited your research, which led him to conclude that we should keep this tax credit, yet you with exactly the same research, I expect, came to exactly the opposite conclusion. I wonder if you could respond to those comments by Mr. Pepin.
Associate Professor, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
The way I understood the comments was that my research demonstrated that there was an increase in public transit usage as a result of this tax credit, and that's correct. The reason I came to a different conclusion is that the cost of the increase—in other words, the cost-effectiveness of the policy—is poor. The study I did suggested that this tax credit cost between $1,200 and $4,800 for each additional public transit rider, which is very expensive. Similarly, the cost to reduce carbon emissions with this policy was between $1,000 per tonne and $22,000 per tonne. These are really high costs compared to other options we have. It's not that it didn't do anything; it's that it did something in a very expensive way. That's why I reached the conclusions I did.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
Okay, thank you.
Mr. Pepin, would you like to respond to that as well, to clarify?
President of the Council, Transport 2000 Québec
Yes.
That's why in our report we suggest that there must be an alternative measure to give a tax credit to transit users that would be more efficient. You need all kinds of measures to encourage the use of transit by Canadians, especially if you want to reach our goal in GES reduction, so it's very important.
As a matter of fact, as we said, it's an increase of 15% for most of the users who claim the tax credit. But what we usually see when there's an increase in fares.... The elasticity of fares is about 25% or 30%, so it could be more than what's estimated by Professor Rivers, but we don't know. You have to test it, of course, to see the results, as they did in Quebec with the program. But with the program they had in Quebec, everybody thought that 50% elasticity on better headway between buses was too much, but they got to their goal, so really it was a success.
You have to try it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
It's not the first time we've heard a difference of opinion at this committee, folks.
Thank you all for your presentations. We will have to suspend and go to committee business.
Also, Mr. Lafrenière, if you could send the clerk that correspondence, that would be helpful.
Mr. Sorbara.
Liberal
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Mr. Rivers, can you table the report that you have or you produced, or send it to us?
Associate Professor, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I can if you tell me how, yes.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We'll get the clerk to talk to you afterwards, Mr. Rivers, and she'll give you the address.
We'll suspend for two minutes and do committee business for however long that takes, and then go to Global Affairs Canada on division 20 of part 4.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I'll call the meeting back to order.
I believe, Ms. O'Connell, you have a motion to present to committee on the subject matter.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
I don't have a formal written motion, but I think we need to ensure, when we do clause by clause as a normal procedure, that we establish parameters to make sure that we understand how long we'll be debating clause by clause.
It's my understanding that previously.... Perhaps I can get assistance from the clerk, but I've highlighted a few key points, which we could discuss, to make sure that we have parameters for our clause-by-clause study.
First is that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause examination of Bill C-44 no later than Monday, May 29, which I think is something we already agreed to.
The second is that the chair may limit debate on each clause to a maximum of five minutes per party per clause.
Next is that the committee may sit until 9 p.m. on May 29, 2017, and start again on May 30 at 8:45.
The next is that if clause-by-clause consideration has not been completed by 9 p.m. on May 30, all remaining amendments be deemed moved and the question be put by the chair.
The last would be that after completion or passage by the committee, the chair report to the House as soon as possible. I'm gathering that there would be some more technical language to ensure this scheme, but I think those are the key elements that would be normal in preparation for clause-by-clause study.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Is there any discussion? It's a typical kind of motion to handle a bill.
Mr. Albas.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
I have a quick question that perhaps Ms. O'Connell can clarify. It's on the process, Mr. Chair. If it's deemed to have been approved and reported by, I think you said, Tuesday night—
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
—I'm worried that if there are large amounts that have not been done, and if there's a particular clause that I or some other member may think is more interesting than other ones, if there's going to be some flexibility from the chair to make sure that we actually do our job and go through those sections. I would hate to see certain clauses not get the scrutiny they deserve.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I think, at least as we have tried to operate in the past, that the motion is saying five minutes per clause. There are many clauses in the bill on which there will be virtually no discussion—I think we've moved pages and pages at a time in the past—but there are some other clauses that are going to require more than five minutes.
As chair I have allowed more time on those clauses that I think we all as a committee realize need probably a little more debate, but what is suggested to be firm on is the 9 p.m. deadline on May 30. That gives us from 8:45 in the morning until 9 at night, which seems a fair bit of time. I think we'd be able to finish by that time, but the government, from their perspective, need a deadline in order to get this bill to the Senate as amended.
Mr. Liepert.
Conservative
Ron Liepert Conservative Calgary Signal Hill, AB
I think we're pretty much okay with all of this. Is it five minutes per clause or five minutes per party per clause?
Liberal
Conservative
Ron Liepert Conservative Calgary Signal Hill, AB
I wanted that to be clearer.
The only other thing that I would ask is that before we commence at 8:45 on Tuesday, if need be and if there's still significant work to be done, is it possible to pull out clauses that you know are going to need more discussion and deal with those first? Then, if we have to approve clauses in a lump at nine o'clock at night, they'll be the least contentious.