Industry Committee on May 30th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Orr.

[Dr. Dale Orr]

Okay, first I'll go over here and say yes, I remember well when I did work in the Department of Industry and we had to struggle. What do you do when the name of the game internationally is subsidization, as it is in autos and aerospace? It's really a tough issue.

Obviously everybody loses when the game is played that way. So from the Government of Canada point of view, I would say, well, obviously the first thing we try to do is get everybody else to agree to let the market work. We've been trying to do that for 30 years. I'm not even sure we're moving forward rather than back, so it's really tough.

I would just say that it really has to be handled on a case-by-case basis. I would contend that in the aerospace industry, the amount of money that the federal government and the Government of Quebec have paid per job in aerospace...pretty expensive jobs. There are a lot of other things you could have done with that money that probably would have been better.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

That is provocation.

[Dr. Dale Orr]

On EI, I'm in the process of looking at that issue. It appears to be because we have had good mobility out of Saskatchewan, I don't think the case can be made that the general existence and generosity in policies of the Canadian EI program are a really serious barrier to mobility. The way EI has worked in Saskatchewan, that labour market has worked efficiently and effectively. I guess what this argues is that the extended benefits provision may be the nasty part of it that is applying in eastern Canada. It's a complex question and a lot needs to be done to be sure we know how important that is. Clearly it's a complex issue, but those two things appear to be the case.

Okay, on the tax relief, the $20 billion of tax relief that you heard about in the budget, well, that includes about $10 billion of that tax relief, about half of that $20 billion. The government was measuring tax relief when they were actually increasing taxes instead of cutting taxes--yes. So there you have it.

Yes, I'll table that document.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Thank you.

[Dr. Dale Orr]

No problem.

So what else can I say? There are, I guess, two things I should say.

There still was $10 billion in tax relief, and that's a pretty big number relative to what we've seen from 1993 right up until the economic statement of last year. That's a lot of tax relief relative to what we had seen until the very dying days of the Liberal administration.

The other is that I am really optimistic, going forward, that fiscal conditions permitting, the government will accelerate those corporate income tax cuts. They will, in fact, go back up on the personal income tax rates, the basic personal amount and the marginal rate that is in effect as we sit here today. That, I think, will be reattained in budget 2007, surely, along with other forms of tax relief.

I'm an optimist that going forward we will get more tax relief, and tax relief that particularly will help make the economy more competitive.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

That's fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I'd love to ask a question, Mr. Orr, but I think our time is up.

Thank you very much for being with us. We may bring you back as a witness. I know members wanted to ask some more questions.

[Dr. Dale Orr]

Well, thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I think we'll go right to the motion. I understand the time restrictions. We don't have Mr. Masse here, but perhaps, Mr. Holland, you could introduce your motion and the reasoning behind it, the rationale behind it.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, I know time is short. I understand the minister is going to be before the committee next week, so there'll be opportunities to ask him some of the broader questions that relate to this.

I think there's a fine balance. Certainly, Canada wants to attract foreign investment, but I think it's also important first to ask questions--particularly when you have one of the largest takeovers in Canadian history--about ensuring that we do wind up with Canadian headquarters left at the end of these processes.

This motion simply deals with ensuring a level regulatory playing field, and I think that's certainly fair. It's not injecting ourselves into the debate at all, other than to say that the market should have the opportunity to consider all bids that are present--this is with respect to Xstrata and Falconbridge, also Inco--and that as European regulators are deliberating and are expected to make their decision on July 12, we similarly should ensure, and through this committee ask the minister to ensure, that there is a level playing field.

That's what the motion is calling for.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

I can read the motion if you wish, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Do you have a point of order, Monsieur Crête?

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Are we debating the motion that we received 48 hours ago or the motion that we received this morning? If we are debating the motion that was received this morning, it is not consistent with our procedures. There must be 48 hours' notice, and we should debate the motion after 48 hours. If that is the one that Mr. Holland is putting on the table now, I am not prepared to debate it. It is not consistent with our rules. It should be debated once we have had 48 hours' notice.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

My understanding as the chair is that we were debating the motion that was submitted last week, I believe.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

I would like Mr. Holland to answer. The one he has in front of him is the one he tabled this morning. There is a major difference in the content of the two.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Well, I spoke to the clerk at the beginning of the meeting with respect to the ability to amend the motion such that it incorporated what you see here, and the clerk advised me that was in order and was appropriate. Therefore, I've made the amendment and made sure it was circulated in both official languages.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Chairman, if it is an amendment to the main motion, it should be presented that way. I have trouble seeing how we could move from one to the other by amending the motion today.

In my opinion, if Mr. Holland wants to debate that motion instead of the other one, we would consider it a new motion. It is not presented as an amendment. Moreover, he did not say that in his presentation. It should in fact be deemed a new motion and we should debate it 48 hours from now. In other words, if we want to debate a motion today, give us the motion that we received 48 hours ago. If we have a proposed amendment, we can debate it as part of the process. For the time being, the situation is unclear, and I would like to know how to interpret the situation, in order to know if we are debating the motion tabled 48 hours ago or an amendment. The one from this morning is certainly not in order for debate today.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Holland.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Chair, it's a motion by substitution, which is allowed in the rules of procedure. That's what I'm doing. I'm bringing this forward as a motion of substitution. It's regarding the same matter.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Chairman, the routine motions have never covered alternate motions.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I'm just going to respond, because I do have the second motion in front of me, and I would say as the chair that the motions are substantively different. In my view, it doesn't even seem to be an amendment. It seems to be a substantively different motion. If we allow motions by substitution, then the 48-hour rule is not in effect, because Mr. Crête could introduce a motion and appear at the committee and say, “Well, I'm withdrawing this motion and substituting this motion.”

Mr. McTeague.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Chair, I understand Mr. Crête's perspective. Perhaps it might be easier for the committee, then, to receive this as Mr. Holland's original motion and a proposed amendment to that motion by deleting the words--sorry, I do not have the original motion in front of me, for some reason--after “pursuant to Standing Order 108(2),” as I would recall.

I would move the following: pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), that the Minister of Industry delay closing the Investment Canada review of the Xstrata/Falconbridge merger proposal until after all other international regulatory bodies have ruled regarding the Inco/Falconbridge merger proposal.

That's a motion of amendment. I think that is consistent with our rules.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

So was substitution.