Committee
Consult the new user guides
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the new user guides
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 336
View Kim Rudd Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you for coming. I know time is tight these days. We really appreciate your coming. I have two questions.
Certainly I and many of us have had the pleasure of reading a number of your reports, and your predictions are pretty accurate. The details in those reports help us make wise decisions. In your report, you talk about 2014 and the tax gap and the underground economy. The numbers tell one story.
I have two questions. I wonder if you could quickly just tell us how you see the underground economy now compared with where it was 20 years ago and in 2014, and where you see the challenges that lie ahead. I'll ask that first one, and then I'll quickly come back to the second one. Thank you.
View Kim Rudd Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you. I think airlines, as an example, have certainly gone to plastic and no cash.
View Kim Rudd Profile
Lib. (ON)
Your office also made some projections tied to climate plans. You did confirm in your report that eight out of 10 Canadians are better off under our plan. I have two questions for you. Have you considered evaluating the Conservative pamphlet that came out yesterday? Have they asked, or are you thinking about putting some numbers to that for comparison's sake for Canadians?
View Kim Rudd Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
View Kim Rudd Profile
Lib. (ON)
Oh, I got my three minutes back. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to continue in the vein of pricing pollution. I read your report, and you state that putting a price on pollution is one of the most effective and efficient ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. What's curious to me is that the Leader of the Opposition yesterday said that in fact your report said the exact opposite—that it doesn't work.
I don't want to suggest that the Leader of the Opposition is misleading people, but I wonder if you could clarify what your report said.
View Kim Rudd Profile
Lib. (ON)
As I read your report, I think that putting a price on pollution is, as I said, the most efficient and cost-effective way. Transparency is another word you used in your report, as you just said.
The other thing your report does is to recognize that there is a transition that we go through with those technologies. It could be 20 years away. It could be 10 years away. We don't know, but the majority of Canadians are certainly better off, as you've said in your report, with the price on pollution than they were without it.
Thank you very much.
View Kim Rudd Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the growing number of you who are here with us today.
On that point, I had the pleasure of being at a presentation by the deputy chief economist of the TD Bank on the B-20, which my colleague has referred to. In fact, he said their position was that it was the right thing to do. It has done what it needed to do. It of course needs to be constantly re-evaluated. It is something that's often brought up at this table, and I think it's important to point out that there are opinions on that that differ from my colleague's opinion.
I have two quick questions. On the governance council for the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada, can you tell us a little bit about what putting that council in place is providing in terms of the return on the investment, if you will?
View Kim Rudd Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you very much. Certainly it's something that this committee has heard a lot about. It has been very well received, especially by consumers. I have a lot of seniors in my riding, and they were very happy to see some of the work we're doing around this issue.
On pensions, I think it's around $197,000 to continue to protect Canada pensions. It's not a huge amount of money, but what exactly is that? What further steps are happening?
View Kim Rudd Profile
Lib. (ON)
Oh, what a great forward-thinking opportunity for us. Thank you.
View Kim Rudd Profile
Lib. (ON)
Just as a point of clarification, I think, when my colleague talks about “no industry participation”, if he remembers, the witnesses yesterday did talk about the panel that has been struck, in which industry is very engaged.
Part of that conversation was about what mechanisms will be looked at going forward, because we recognize that this is a new world we're in, and we need to make sure that we're always nimble and ready for what the next situation brings. I guess the other point was really about understanding that the scope of what those safeguards could be and should be was one of the roles of this panel.
In a more formal way, my comments would be that the customs tariffs require that certain evidentiary standards—and we heard that from the panel—must be met in order for the Minister of Finance to recommend the imposition of provisional safeguards: goods that are imported in such conditions that cause or threaten to cause serious injury to domestic industry and the existence of critical circumstances.
We heard that from yesterday's panel, as well as the previous panel of officials, who were talking about making sure that the surges are well investigated in order to make sure they understand where those surges are coming from and why they're coming in that manner. As well, a variety of considerations could affect the government's approach to safeguard actions, including information gathering from domestic producers and stakeholders going back to the panel and the broader sector generally.
For those reasons, Chair, I believe this amendment should be defeated.
View Kim Rudd Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you very much.
Thank you for coming today, and to those of you on the phone. Catherine, it's good to see you again.
One of the things you have said, and that has been reiterated by others, is that we really are in exceptional circumstances. This is not something—to your point, Ken—that we envisioned would ever happen. As a government, one of the things that is our responsibility is ensuring that we do have the tools in the tool box, as someone said, to be able to respond to those exceptional circumstances, when they arise.
I don't think anyone thinks there's a magic bullet here, or that we're going to be able to just have something that's going to address this. We have to be nimble. The panel group brought together to look at these things is a key element of this. This is one element of a very large global trade agenda. Being proactive and at the forefront of some of these things is key to us being successful on those global markets. A number of folks have come out to support this, and the comments here, including the mayor of Sault Ste. Marie, who has been very active in his support, as well as others.
One of the things that happened over however long the tariffs were in place—a couple of years, I guess—is that the SMEs were caught in this whole process. I'm going to go to you, Mr. Bunch. You can't see me, but I hope you're still there.
View Kim Rudd Profile
Lib. (ON)
Great. Thank you for your patience—I know it's not easy to be outside the room and listening to this without being able to see us all.
I'm going to ask you a question around SMEs' options—or optionality, maybe—to apply for exceptions and relief, within tariffs imposed over this past period of time. I know that in my riding of Northumberland—Peterborough South, I had one particular SME whose only product used in manufacturing was available only in the United States. He was able to go through that process and obtain that relief.
Can you talk a bit about whether or not you think that's an important tool within this process, especially for SMEs?
View Kim Rudd Profile
Lib. (ON)
Results: 1 - 15 of 336 | Page: 1 of 23

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data