Evidence of meeting #6 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was terms.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Michael Murphy  Senior Vice-President, Policy, Canadian Chamber of Commerce
Paul Darby  Deputy Chief Economist, Conference Board of Canada

10:20 a.m.

Liberal

Joe Fontana Liberal London North Centre, ON

Thank you. Perhaps Colin would at least clarify what the words “all options” would mean, because I think the motion as amended now seems to advise the minister that he in fact should do something very specific. I'm not sure when he says, “That the Minister consider all options”, what essentially that means.

Let me just refer again to the Investment Canada sort of scenario, which says, after the part I read previously, it is important to recognize that in order to make the net benefit determination, the IRD consults the provincial governments of those provinces that will or may be affected by the implementation of the investments as well as the Competition Bureau.

In the case of larger or more sensitive cases, it goes on to say that the investor will be required to provide the federal government with written contractual undertakings in order to satisfy the minister that the acquisition will be of net benefit to Canada in an undertaking typically related to such matters as new capital investments, employment, research and development, expenditures, re-investment of earnings, the employment of Canadians, and their involvement in the management and equity ownership of business and exports.

I would hope this is a process that's already under way by Investment Canada. The minister who's responsible for Investment Canada and Investment Canada have to go through all of the various reports, and there are not an awful lot of options for the minister other than one or two things. He can, as the committee is advising, take the maximum time possible under our legislation to make the right decision for Canadians, in terms of net benefits to Canada. That would mean a fairly lengthy process, which is presently being undertaken by Investment Canada through the minister. That's really the only option, because at the end of the day the minister has to make that determination.

I think what our motion also said is that there are other things going on too. As you know, the Inco-Falconbridge merger--even though the marketplace is the proper and appropriate place to determine these things in the private sector--is going through some regulatory assessments elsewhere, i.e. in the United States and Europe.

Europe has taken eight months to figure out whether or not an Inco-Falconbridge merger is going to have a positive or a negative impact on Europe. The United States is also doing the same thing. Here we are saying let's take at least 75 days essentially to determine whether or not this is the best scenario for Canada.

So the motion does two things. One is to say to the minister, delay doing anything until you do all of the things that are required under Investment Canada, and take the full 75 days, but more importantly, let's wait to see what the international community is saying about Inco-Falconbridge vis-à-vis Europe and the United States. If we're going to want a level playing field in this country, in terms of foreign investment, then maybe that's a subject of discussion for another day. In fact, as we try to build our manufacturing sector and look to all of those competitive issues, including what's happening internationally, then at least we and the minister should not make a decision until such time as other regulatory bodies around the country, around the world, essentially determine something that two Canadian companies want to do.

So I think when Colin says “all options”, I'm not sure there are a whole bunch of options, other than gathering the information, doing the net benefit test, and at the same time, as the motion says, waiting for the international community to assess what's happening with regard to Inco and Falconbridge. That is the level playing field that I think Canadians would expect, that this committee should expect, and that the minister should want. And I think we're all on the same page.

But I'm not sure what “all options” means. So if you had some views as to what “all options” would be, I'd like to hear them.

10:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

I have quite a list. I have Mr. Masse.

Mr. Fontana, you've posed a question to Mr. Carrie, so I think what I'll do is to go to Mr. Masse--who is on the list--and then I'll go to Mr. Carrie, then Mr. Lapierre, and then Mr. Bonin.

10:25 a.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think we need to take a step back to where this all started. It started from an original motion from Mr. Holland that called for full investigation, for the committee to be engaged on the whole process of Xstrata--a whole series of different machinations related to the takeover processes. That was something the committee could have chosen to do. We could have gone down that path to have those hearings.

The reason I proposed the subamendment, which is now the main motion, was that it gets to the due process issue. If there wasn't support at least to go down the road of having those full-out hearings, we would get to really the crux of the matter.

I thank Mr. Fontana for bringing a copy of the act to today's meeting, because I think it highlights that this is in the minister's purview. Too, we're talking about the express will of this committee, and the express will of me as a member of this committee. The minister can either listen to us or not listen to us, or he can pick words out here or there that he may not like or disagree with, but I'm more concerned about what's going to happen in Sudbury right now versus some European bureaucracy in Brussels holding up a process, or exposing a weakness, that we have in Canada.

So I think the motion we have on the floor is sufficient. I appreciate the concerns of the parliamentary secretary about the minister, but with all due respect, this is the expression of this committee, and it will be the minister, at the end of the day, to take that guidance from us.

10:30 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you.

Mr. Carrie.

10:30 a.m.

Conservative

Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank Mr. Fontana for posing those questions to me. I think everyone on the committee has the same overall intent. We want to make sure that we do have a level playing field, and we also want to make sure that Canada is perceived as being open for foreign investment and not being restrictive at all.

Basically, I would say the difference with the language is that by wording it the way in which I've suggested, it does give the minister more options. I guess that's the basic difference.

10:30 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

We have Monsieur Lapierre and then Monsieur Bonin.

10:30 a.m.

Liberal

Jean Lapierre Liberal Outremont, QC

In fact, Mr. Chairman, we do not want the minister to have every available option. We want him to follow one option, which is the one to extend the deadline as far as possible. If we say that the minister has every option available to him under the act, we don't need to adopt a resolution here. You might as well send him a copy of the act and tell him to respect it, and the committee's role would just be superfluous.

We want to express the wish of the committee, we want the committee to provide advice. Therefore, it must be directional. We are not here to tell the minister to enforce the law. He does not need us to do that, that's his responsibility. However, I believe the message we want to send — and that is why I find the motion very restrictive — is that we want as little political intervention as possible in the process. In that sense, we would tell the minister to adhere to what is prescribed in the law. We are not asking him to do anything illegal, or anything else, we are just telling him that he should extend the deadline as far as is authorized by law.

Simultaneously, we want the market and shareholders to have an array of options, because if shareholders don't have any real choice between both options because of bureaucratic interference, can it be said that they truly have a choice?

So, in that way, we simply want to express a wish. But we cannot do this by telling the minister that all options are available to him. We are just letting him know which option the committee prefers that he take. I think that you'll agree with me that if we aim any lower, it would not even be worth it to pass a motion.

10:30 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you.

Mr. Bonin.

10:30 a.m.

Liberal

Raymond Bonin Liberal Nickel Belt, ON

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, once more.

I am very concerned about the words “all options”. We are dealing here with an offer, a friendly takeover, that is dated October 11, 2005. “All options” could be interpreted to mean to wait until the Xstrata offer of a hostile takeover on the condition that the first friendly takeover not take place. It could mean that the Teck Cominco offer of purchasing Inco on the condition that they drop the Falconbridge offer...and there are more offers coming, probably, so it could become very cumbersome. We don't want European or American companies deciding, “You have five options; we will decide which one is best for you.”

We have a friendly takeover offer that is dated October 11, 2005. Here we are in June, and we're getting other offers now. When the offer was made on October 11, 2005, the name Xstrata was in the news. It was known that they had an interest, but they waited until the end of the first process to try to stop it.

So if we are to be fair, for the possibility of a friendly takeover dated October 11, 2005, I think we have to complete that first.

10:30 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

The amendment is only in English. Is this amendment in order or is it not in order?

I'm advised by the clerk that the amendment is in order, even though it's in only one of the official languages.

10:35 a.m.

Bloc

Robert Vincent Bloc Shefford, QC

I believe we have two official languages and that they should be respected. I do not want to hear from the clerk that the motion is receivable in English. Let's be clear that we have two official languages, French and English. If he wanted to table an amendment this morning, he should have done so in both official languages.

10:35 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

I'm told it is an amendment that is in order. I certainly agree with you that it should be in both official languages. I suspect that may influence the vote on the amendment.

Are there any more comments on the amendment?

10:35 a.m.

An hon. member

Question.

10:35 a.m.

A voice

Mr. Masse's?

10:35 a.m.

Conservative

Bev Shipley Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON

The time is for the question. Call the question.

10:35 a.m.

Some hon. members

Call the question.

10:35 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

All those in favour of the amendment?

(Amendment negatived)

We're back to the main motion.

Mr. McTeague calls the question on the main motion.

(Motion agreed to)

Thank you very much, everyone.

Members, there is one more procedural motion we have to deal with. There is a routine motion being distributed. It's in both official languages. It's with respect to witnesses' expenses. This should have been done at our first meeting. It will be handed out.

This relates to witnesses' expenses, and it states:

That, if requested, reasonable travel, accommodation and living expenses be reimbursed to witnesses, not exceeding two representatives per organization; and that, in exceptional circumstances, payment for more representatives be made at the discretion of the Chair.

This is a routine motion proposed by Mr. Lapierre.

(Motion agreed to)

Does everyone have a copy of the operational budget before them?

This is the operational budget request. The period is May 29 to June 30. The amount requested is $15,200. My understanding is that because of the amount being below a certain amount, we do not require liaison committee approval, but we do need the approval of this committee.

It's proposed by Mr. Lapierre.

(Motion agreed to)

I believe I only have one other issue and then we can take a break until 11 o'clock.

This is mainly dealing with the questioning of witnesses. Concerning the allocation of time and who speaks in what order, I think there is some confusion on the committee as to who speaks in what order. The clerk has drawn up a very good sheet as to who speaks when and what is the allocation of time. I'll be passing that out so we know exactly when a Liberal has the floor, when a Bloc Québécois has the floor, when the NDP has the floor, when a Conservative has the floor, and when the independent has the floor. It's all allocated here.

This was agreed to at the first meeting by the committee. This was just the clerk putting into effect what the committee had directed him to do. This is the procedure I am following. I think there was some question as to why I was going to certain parties ahead of others in certain rounds. This clarifies that.

If there are any questions on this, please contact me or the clerk, but this was the schedule we all agreed to at the first meeting.

The other issue I do want to raise is in terms of the questioning of witnesses. I think we've had maybe two MPs stay within the allotted time, so this is a challenge, and especially when the minister is here it will be a challenge because we obviously want to have as many people question the minister or other witnesses.

The first round is six minutes. That was at the will of the committee. We rarely go under nine minutes for the first round.

I'd like members to discipline themselves. It is hard for me to do so, and it's hard for me to cut off a witness. If members take five minutes and give one minute to the witness, I don't feel it's fair to cut the witness off after a minute. What I'm recommending is that the members spend no longer than half the allotted time for the question, allow the witness the other half the time, and then at that point I'll cut it off to try to be fair to all members and all parties.

I'm asking you to discipline yourselves. We'll see how that goes. But if need be, I will step in and try to enforce time limits when appropriate.

That's all I had before the committee. If there's nothing else, let's have 15 minutes for coffee, some doughnuts, and a group hug, and we'll get started at 11.

10:57 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

I call the meeting to order. We are continuing with our study of the manufacturing sector. We have two groups before us. The first will be from eleven until noon and the second from noon until one. We have two excellent witnesses before us. I'm very familiar with those who have been on the industry committee before.

We have Michael Murphy, senior vice-president of policy with the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.

Welcome to you, Mr. Murphy.

We have Paul Darby, the deputy chief economist with the Conference Board of Canada.

Welcome to you, Mr. Darby.

Perhaps we'll have Mr. Murphy start. We've agreed that witnesses should have up to ten minutes to present. You can take the full ten minutes or less. Then we'll go to Mr. Darby for up to ten minutes. Then we'll go immediately to questions from the committee members.

Thank you very much for being here.

Mr. Murphy, we'll start with you.

10:57 a.m.

Michael Murphy Senior Vice-President, Policy, Canadian Chamber of Commerce

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me say that it is a pleasure to be here on behalf of the members of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, which is an organization that I think many of you are familiar with in terms of representing a very broad cross-section of business.

Let me commend you and all the members of the committee, Mr. Chair, for undertaking this work. I think it is not only an excellent choice in terms of subject, but it's also very timely.

I will start with a few brief remarks and then I will be happy to engage in a discussion. My remarks today, essentially, will summarize a recent report that the chamber prepared and we entitled it Towards Canada's Prosperity: Tackling the Barriers to Productivity Growth. That is the fundamental question that we think should be on all of our minds, and I know it is on yours. Copies of this report were sent to all members of Parliament in April, and we have brought additional copies today; it is available in both languages.

From the perspective of our membership, it is important that the government send positive signals to investors who want to do business here that Canada is open for business. This includes those investors who wish to invest in manufacturing facilities in Canada.

The sector is currently facing a number of challenges that I think are well known to all of you. I would propose today to not spend a whole lot of time talking about the nature of the challenges, but maybe a little more on some of the prescriptions for things we might be able to do.

I wish to briefly review the manufacturing sector having to cope with the high value of the Canadian dollar, competition from low-cost producers like China, rising input costs certainly, and skilled labour shortages, something that really cuts across our economy and has been particularly acute in some geographical areas, and western Canada would certainly be part of that. Manufacturers are, however, restructuring their businesses in response to these challenges they face in the global marketplace. In the future, competitiveness and growth in this sector will depend on a number of factors, a key one being productivity improvements built on innovation and skills development.

While we understand that the government continues to focus on its five key priority areas in the short term, the chamber and its members also need to look at the economy from a long-term perspective and begin addressing the productivity challenges we face in Canada. We believe that a comprehensive strategy is now required to boost overall productivity in Canada. Growth in productivity serves many goals, so there are many good reasons why we should do this--supporting high levels of income is certainly something that I think is critical, letting businesses pay higher wages and still keep costs down and allowing manufacturers to remain profitable and competitive in a global marketplace.

The government can boost productivity by putting measures in place that promote the incentive to work, save, and invest. The focus should be placed on reducing high marginal tax rates, reducing burdensome regulations, reducing barriers to trade, and investing in productivity-enhancing areas, such as education, skills training, research and innovation, and infrastructure. All of these areas are critical for the manufacturing sector.

To that end, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and its members would like to recommend that the government create a more favourable condition for productivity-led growth and raise the standard of living for all Canadians for years to come by focusing on a number of areas. I will touch on each one of these very briefly this morning and will be happy to discuss them further.

The first area is fiscal policy. While I know I am in front of the industry committee and not the finance committee, it is hugely important to keep our eye on this particular ball. Improvements to productivity can be achieved in a number of ways in terms of reducing taxes, upgrading personal skills, savings, investment, risk-taking, innovation, and new investment in critical areas such as education and infrastructure. Our fiscal policy can influence all of these areas.

Government needs to create the room, however, to ensure that this productivity level can be reached by controlling program spending, making spending more efficient, and making further reductions to our level of debt.

On the tax side, the chamber and its members believe that a competitive corporate and personal income tax system needs to be the foundation of Canada's competitive edge. If our uncompetitive tax system continues to dampen Canadians' incentives to work, save, and invest, and they stay in Canada, other policy initiatives will become ineffective in achieving their goals.

Let me say a word about corporate income taxes. We have today, in terms of the broader context, the second highest effective tax rate on corporate investments--basically the effective marginal rate on capital investment--in the industrialized world. In terms of the importance of that issue, we are impeding capital investment and foreign direct investment in the country, and I think there are some specific things we can address there.

While corporate tax measures in the recent budget are positive, the implementation period for providing a number of these is extremely lengthy. I think you're well aware that the general corporate tax rate relief from 21% to 19% will not take full effect until 2010 and the corporate surtax won't be eliminated until 2008. Many industrialized nations continue to pursue tax reforms to ensure that they remain an attractive location for both individuals and businesses. There's more to do.

On the personal side, I'll make a very brief plea here. I think we've got to turn our attention to the question of low- and modest-income earners, especially families earning between $25,000 and $45,000 annually. High marginal tax rates are discouraging work efforts. We also believe the threshold at which the top federal marginal rate kicks in should be raised to at least $150,000 from the current $118,000 to attract and retain highly skilled and productive human capital.

I would also note, however, that the chamber was very pleased the recent budget also committed to raise the threshold for small business, from $300,000 to $400,000 next year, as well as reducing the business income tax rate to 11% by 2009.

A second area of critical importance is our relationship with our southern neighbour. With about 80% of our exports going to the U.S., it's vital that our economic competitiveness and the relationship between the two nations continue to be strengthened. The chamber supports the government's efforts towards a more conciliatory tone with our largest trading partner and that longstanding disagreements are coming to a resolution, such as the softwood lumber dispute.

I would like to say a word about the security and prosperity partnership, two very important words packaged together in a trilateral agreement among the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Originally signed in 2005, it provides a vehicle for finding agreement on potentially hundreds of issues that impede North American competitiveness and security. Resolving border issues will be paramount in the SPP exercise. The chamber will want to ensure that the SPP initiative remains a top priority for our government.

I'll say a quick word on trade, both internally and externally. With one in four of our jobs linked to trade, it's important that trade and investment agreements provide rules that are fair, predictable, and transparent. Trade is also an important determinant for productivity growth, it exposes manufacturing firms to global competition, and it ensures higher-valued products for all consumers. We must continue to press for a liberalized trade environment.

On regulation, another key issue, we are still over-regulated in many ways. The longer it takes for a new product to be approved by government agencies, the less likely it is that the new product will be created. The chamber was pleased when Industry Minister Bernier announced in March of this year that Canada is open to business and open to foreign investment, because the current regulatory and legal barriers generate barriers to foreign investment in Canada and the free movement of goods. The regulatory regime needs to be streamlined to benefit all sectors, including manufacturers. The bottom-line message is to create reforms to implement a smart regulation agenda.

On skills, a crucial issue, the country's citizens obviously play a huge role in our productivity performance. Manufacturers across Canada continue to report difficulty in finding skilled labour. Government can do more to ensure that Canada continues to be competitive and has a skilled and qualified workforce by looking at EI reform, increasing investments for higher education, ensuring the work permit system responds to labour needs, and focusing attention on better integrating immigrants into the workplace.

On infrastructure, despite the importance of public infrastructure to productivity, quality of life, and our economy, there remains a serious key issue to be addressed. First, we need to think more strategically about infrastructure in Canada and the spending associated with it. Secondly, delays at the U.S. border have not only the potential today but increasingly to drag our economy down. Third, we'll talk about ICT investment in rolling out broadband in the country also being critically important. We need a solid national transportation infrastructure strategy, which would include, in our view, the opportunity to discuss P3 initiatives in terms of public-private partnerships.

Let me close, Mr. Chair, with a word on energy as another critical issue. We need to develop an energy strategy in support of a competitive business environment in Canada, one that will strengthen Canada's market-based approach to energy and reflect the needs of both energy producers and consumers. As the energy needs in both Canada and the United States continue to grow, it will be increasingly important to consider energy from a continental perspective as well.

With the implementation of some of the recommendations I've outlined here, the chamber believes there will be more opportunities for workers, families, businesses, and overall productivity to get a boost and to increase our standard of living and support the global competitiveness of our manufacturing sector and the Canadian economy as a whole.

I very much look forward to the opportunity to discuss this important issue. Thank you for your time.

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you, Mr. Murphy. That was a very comprehensive presentation in 10 minutes.

Mr. Darby, you have up to 10 minutes. Thank you.

June 1st, 2006 / 11:05 a.m.

Paul Darby Deputy Chief Economist, Conference Board of Canada

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning, everyone.

This morning I'm actually going to focus on only one aspect of an important issue for Canadian manufacturing, and that's really the issue that's already been touched on by Mr. Murphy: the regulatory regime and the regulatory burden faced not only by Canadian manufacturers, but also by other firms in Canada.

The Conference Board of Canada just released a report in May of this year, Death by a Thousand Paper Cuts: The Effect of Barriers to Competition on Canadian Productivity. I've tabled four copies with the clerk. Unfortunately, I only have them in English. They're also available on the Conference Board website, and I can direct you to that website if you so wish later.

The issue of regulations and I guess in general the barriers to competition in Canada have obviously been talked about for decades, if not centuries. There's always the sense among members of the business community that they're over-regulated, and they often complain about the extent to which they need to comply with existing regulations or the extent to which existing regulations in fact impede their ability to compete or to be appropriately productive. What we often lack is some hard research on whether these complaints are justified.

So the Conference Board, rather bravely, undertook a research project to try to get some sense of whether or not non-tariff barriers and other barriers to competition in Canada were having an effect on Canadian productivity. I guess the real issue is how one measures, indeed, the extent to which any one industry may be facing regulatory barriers. The answer we have adopted, based on other work done in Europe and in the United States, is really to suggest that if there are important barriers to competition in any one industry, you will see that reflected in the industry selling prices, particularly if those industry selling prices are adjusted for transportation costs and for wholesale and retail margins.

We have compared, for 31 industries, the industry selling prices thus adjusted between Canada and the United States. The hypothesis is that if in general the prices are higher in Canada than in the United States--adjusted again for the dollar, for transportation costs, for wholesale-retail margins, and taking all those factors out--most likely those higher prices exist because of some kind of barrier to competition that protects those industries. Prices can be higher in the United States, prices can be higher in Canada, depending on which country has the highest regulatory barriers.

We then correlated those price relationships with productivity measures for those 31 industries in both Canada and the United States. The results are actually quite interesting in the sense that for 16 core industries, almost all focused in the manufacturing sector, the correlation between these barriers to competition and productivity is very high. The higher the regulatory framework as reflected in higher prices, the lower the productivity. The statistical significance of that result in fact is startlingly high from our perspective. It's a much stronger conclusion than we originally expected to achieve.

So I think it's become quite clear, at least for the manufacturing sector, that there is a trade-off. If you're going to impose regulations, you are going to lower productivity, and that now seems to be pretty much an indisputable conclusion.

What's also interesting in the work is that we were unable to find much of a relationship between regulatory barriers to competition and relative productivity in the service sectors. This could reflect either one of two things, or both: the data is poor in the service sector in terms of productivity performance and also in terms of relative prices, and in addition, the service sector outputs tend to be non-tradeable. In fact, you're not facing the same kind of potential competitive pressure. It's not clear that the barriers to competition are going to generate a measurable difference in productivity—Canada versus the United States—because you don't have that U.S. competitor beating down your door to take your haircut business away.

It's probably a combination of both. There's no doubt that in the manufacturing sector, the regulatory framework in Canada is currently lowering our productivity. Obviously there are often a host of justifications for regulations. They protect our health and safety, and they often generate the appropriate competitive environments. But it's important to recognize that every time you impose a regulation, in general you are imposing an economic cost on the firm and lowering productivity.

We made some recommendations in the report. The tariff barriers, such as they now exist, are minimal in their impact, especially when we're talking Canada-U.S. trade. They've been lowered to the point where they're almost non-existent. There are a few sectors—particularly dairy, milk, and poultry—where we still have some significant barriers. But other than those specific sectors, we really aren't focusing much on any action with respect to tariff rates. We have NAFTA in place.

There's no doubt we have a host of regulatory non-tariff barriers for trade, both between provinces and between Canada and other countries in the world. It may be apocryphal, Mr. Chair—and I'm not sure I could prove it—but it is my understanding that Industry Canada made an attempt to inventory the regulatory legislation facing Canadian firms and gave up because it became too onerous a task. The list goes on and on; the pile gets higher and higher. How much money do you really want to spend on that project?

We definitely have to do something to try to simplify and rationalize. We really need to take a long, hard look at whether our current regulatory framework is necessary.

There are a few points I want to raise. One is that we need to harmonize our regulatory framework with the United States. Businesses complain, I think justifiably, particularly in the manufacturing sector, that it's an enormous cost to deal with satisfying the needs of the Canadian and all the various provincial regulators and at the same time meet the needs of the U.S. regulator—often for the same product with only minor differences in the regulations, but you're still filling out paper. We need to harmonize our regulations with the United States as much as possible, and there are great benefits to be gained.

In addition, we have to make a much stronger effort to do something similar with our interprovincial trade barriers. We know that AIT, the Agreement on Internal Trade, has certainly made some progress. The Council of the Federation has picked up the ball in many areas as well, but there's still so much work that needs to be done.

To give that effort a little bit more oomph, Mr. Chair, we were recommending, first, that unless there's a good reason to put a regulation in place, de facto and a priori all interprovincial trade is free—just do away with it all. Unless you can come up with a good reason why you think there should be a regulation, let's start with the principle of free trade.

In every sector, the language of the agreements should reflect that fact. The current language tends to be the other way. All trade is restricted except for the following areas where we've managed to free it up, which from our perspective is 180 degrees in the wrong direction.

Second, regarding interprovincial trade agreements, we need to have some binding dispute settlement mechanism. Currently, provinces can ignore any adverse rulings brought against them under AIT. To be honest, there's nothing with much teeth, Mr. Chair. So our sense is that to try to make this process work, we need to have some kind of binding dispute resolution mechanism.

Other provinces have already recommended that. They may include punitive monetary impositions. I think we have to put some teeth into the resolutions that come from various dispute settlement mechanisms.

In general, we also really have to think about how to reduce and/or rationalize the number of regulations we have in general in Canada. It's a huge effort. It's not particularly sexy, if you like; it's just a lot of grunt work.

In conclusion, I think I need to reiterate that the empirical evidence is now very strong that we are not doing ourselves any favours, particularly from a productivity and a competitiveness perspective, with the current regulatory regime as it exists in Canada.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you very much, Mr. Darby.

We'll go to Mr. Fontana first, for six minutes.

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

Joe Fontana Liberal London North Centre, ON

Thank you.

Welcome, and thank you for your very comprehensive presentation.

Of course, we've heard already from some of your associate members who have raised the question of the dollar, competition, the regs, and the labour shortages. All of those, I think, are very much a part of a new productivity agenda that as a previous government we started to undertake. Hopefully the new government will continue to undertake it.

I could ask an awful lot of questions, but I'm limited by time and your answers. Let me just pick a couple of the subject matters you raised that I'd like further explanation on. Perhaps my colleagues will ask about some of the others.

There are two issues I want to talk about. One is taxes and their impact on productivity. The second one is with regard to infrastructure, especially at the border.

With regard to taxes, you raised a couple of things. You have indicated that we have high corporate taxes. Where do we need to go? I think you said from 21% to 19% was okay, but it was taking far too long, and you spoke of the corporate surtax. Maybe you can tell me where, in order to be competitive, based on your analysis, we have to go.

Secondly, you started talking about quality of life and the average working person. You indicated that the low tax rate was perhaps still too high, and yet it's moving now from 15% to 15.5%, which is the reverse of what you're suggesting, and also that you want the threshold at the highest level to go up in aggregate, and I would agree. But as to whether that high marginal rate is too high, what should that rate be?

You didn't talk about capital depreciation or moving towards a system where we would give some sort of incentives for people and businesses to invest in new machinery and new technology for the purposes of increasing productivity. I wonder if you could do so.

You might also want to comment on whether or not moving the GST from 7% to 6% has anything to do with productivity, and how in fact it's going to help us in our productivity. If you want to comment on this, I'd like it.

With regard to infrastructure, believe me, I think everybody around this table knows we need to move on the security and prosperity agenda as it relates to the United States. So many people, including premiers, are involved in this particular issue, and I know you also have associations across the border. At the end of the day, it seems to me the Americans have as much to lose if we don't get this border issue right, either in terms of physical infrastructure or this perceived security threat and the impact it has on agriculture, manufacturing, services, people, and so on. If we don't get it right, obviously it's going to hurt our productivity and competitiveness.

Outside of investing in infrastructure and making sure, what innovative ideas can you suggest? The Americans have 21 states for whom Canada is their number one customer; therefore, they have as much to lose in terms of employment and exports as we have. What are you doing with your counterparts to either convince Congress that any impediments to that border, such as special passports or special things and all of this...? Have we gone too far on the security side of things while we're missing the boat on the prosperity that could continue if we took a different view of the border and its impediments? Could you address that subject? Thank you.

11:20 a.m.

Senior Vice-President, Policy, Canadian Chamber of Commerce

Michael Murphy

There is a lot to comment on. I'll take them one at a time and briefly, Mr. Chair.

On corporate income tax, yes, the previous government's recommendation has basically been adopted in the recent federal budget. Our proposal had been to do something a little more aggressive--start in the current year with a one-point reduction and do three more over the next three years, so that we'd go from 21 down to 17 over a four-year period. In the interests of time, I won't take the time to talk about each one of these in detail.

On personal income taxes, there's a real issue at the bottom end of the rate, particularly as it relates to people, as I mentioned, who are somewhere in the $25,000 to $40,000 income range. The problem is clawbacks. It's a well-known problem and it's a tremendous disincentive, because if you are in that income group and want to go out and earn another dollar of marginal income, you're going to have it clawed back, essentially, because you're going to lose whatever other GST credits, other child tax benefit credits, or any of the other issues out there, which seems to us to be totally counterproductive.

On CCA rates--capital cost allowance rates--in terms of incenting investment, we saw and were very supportive of initiatives that had come out of the last couple of budgets, which looked at energy, telecommunications, pipelines, and a number of other areas in terms of incenting, through the depreciation regime, more investment. This is absolutely, fundamentally critical. I didn't mention a bunch of things in my remarks today because I was trying to keep a lid on the time, but that's certainly an area that we strongly believe is important. What we have to do is look at the useful life of assets and match that up to economic realities; that's something the Department of Finance needs to really focus on, and we need more out of that. I think we've taken the right baby steps there, but much more can be done for many sectors.

In terms of the GST, from the standpoint of a recognition that Canadians are overtaxed, it's another tangible example of an acknowledgement from government that Canadians are overtaxed, so there is one upside view on it. Was it our first priority? No, I'll have to admit that it wasn't, because we've got our focus on taxing income and trying to alleviate the pressures on Canadians and on the business community in that regard.

On the security and prosperity partnership, a hugely important initiative, I don't think we can ever get to a point at which we can say that security has received too much attention. In the dialogue with the United States, that is never going to change. That is the preoccupation there. We have to live with it. We have our own trump cards. In terms of being able to have the right kind of dialogue, the issue is the one you raised--what are we doing about the border?

The border is potentially an extremely negative component of our relationship because we have to behave, from a commerce standpoint, as if the border isn't there. We have such an integrated supply management system and supply chain system between our countries that any hint that the border is going to be an impediment immediately affects investment decisions. We already have examples of that, so it's absolutely crucial to get that right.

If we want, we can get into WHTI later. I'd be happy to talk about that.

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you.

Mr. Darby, do you have some comments?