Industry Committee on May 5th, 2009

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I want to transition to the big picture, the choices that Canadians have as we move forward.

This past weekend the Liberals chose a new leader. It was a tight race, a nail-biter. In the end they chose the tax-and-spend guy. We've seen very little policy brought forward from the Liberal Party over the last few months. We have two that we could point to. One was to raise taxes; the Liberal leader said they would have to raise taxes. There hasn't been much definition around that. For example, they haven't identified which taxes they would raise. If it were corporate taxes--

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Go ahead, Mr. Rota.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

If Mr. Lake would like to do his propaganda pitch, I suggest he do it at election time or outside our committee time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

It's not a point of order, but I take your point.

Mr. Lake.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I wonder if you could comment on what an increase of corporate taxes might do to Canada's competitiveness.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

As committee members may be aware, we're on track to, by 2012, have the lowest corporate tax rate in the G-7. That was a goal we set a couple of years ago. We're on track to meeting that goal. I think that's an important goal for our economic competitiveness.

The other thing I would say is that in terms of our tax credit regime, which is something we administer at Industry Canada, although it is set in the nation's budget, we have the richest tax credit regime in the OECD. That's important for our companies when they are involved in innovation, the tax credit for innovation. I would be opposed to any attempt to raise taxes and reduce tax credits. I think that would be wrong-headed. It would hurt our competitiveness. Therefore, that would not be something our government would be in favour of.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

The second main area of interest for the party seems to be EI. I would note that the last time the Liberals were in charge of the EI program they spent $54 billion of the money that went into EI in areas other than EI, on things like the HRSDC boondoggle, the gun registry, the sponsorship program, and things like that.

Of that $54 billion, $22.5 billion was taxpayers' money, but $31.5 billion was money from Canadian businesses. Would you comment on the impact on competitiveness, had those businesses had $31.5 billion more to invest during those 13 years?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

You don't have to take it from me. I think it was pretty clear in Red Wilson's report on competitiveness, which indicated that we had to do some things to make sure that our space here in Canada was more competitive. It required us, in our view, to have a low tax regime and to not look at business as an opportunity to fleece or to steal the eggs of the golden goose.

From our perspective, business is our partner. Business has to have room to grow and room to invest. It has to be supported through our tax system and through reduction in red tape by making sure the playing field is level. That's why competition policy is so important.

These are long-term objectives. That's why you find them in budget 2009 under economic action plan, because they can have immediate results for us. But they also have a long-term positive impact. I just think that is the way to go.

I'm optimistic about our country. We have set the stage to rebound out of the world economic downturn as quickly as possible and as completely as possible. In that sense, we will continue to be the envy of the world.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Minister.

The last round of questions is reserved for the Bloc Québécois. I believe that Mr. Vincent and Mr. Bouchard will be sharing the speaking time.

Mr. Bouchard.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

I—

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Sorry. Mr. Masse, go ahead.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Out of the last questioning, I'd like to know from our researchers how much money it is going to cost the Canadian taxpayers to borrow for these corporate tax cuts. We'll have to pay for the interest that accrues on that in the upcoming ten years. I'd like to know how much we're borrowing for the tax cuts and the interest on that projection for paying for those corporate taxes, since we don't have the money right now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Masse. We can see if the analysts can do some research for the committee for the upcoming meeting to give you that answer.

Monsieur Bouchard.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, I want to go back again to your budget concerning wireless, broadband and Internet access.

First of all, it seems to me you're open to the federal government establishing a complementary program or one that would harmonize with that of the Quebec government. I appreciate that openness.

I would like to know one thing. When will the federal government's program be ready? I can give you—you or one of your deputy ministers—the name of a deputy minister in the Quebec government who is working on this file and with whom you could exchange information. I could submit that name to you. Would that suit you?

[Richard Dicerni]

First you'd have to give me the name of the official, of the appropriate contact. Second, we want to maximize the impact of the $215 million that we're going to be spending. We want to do it as appropriately and suitably as possible. We want to do it in cooperation with the stakeholders.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Go ahead, Mr. Vincent.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to return to the topic addressed earlier.

Mr. Dicerni, you answered me regarding intellectual property. I've received a copy of a letter from a member of the U.S. Congress, Mr. Bradley J. Sherman, which was sent to Michael Wilson, Canada's Ambassador to the United States. In it, the congressman states that we are lagging behind, that the major deficiencies in the intellectual property rights system should be corrected immediately. For a 13th consecutive year, we are on the United States Trade Representative's Special 301 Watchlist on the protection of intellectual property rights.

Mr. Sherman continues by pointing out that Canada does not provide enough protection at its borders against the import and export of pirated products. He adds that Canadian customs officers currently do not have the legal authority to seize counterfeit goods, even those that are visible. What he reports in this letter is the subject of Recommendation 11 in the report tabled in June 2007.

When will the government implement those recommendations to protect our industries in Quebec and Canada?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

First, in terms of enforcing the borders, I have to rely on my colleague, Peter Van Loan, in his responsibilities. I found our addition to the 301 list inaccurate and unfortunate on the part of the Americans. We're on the same list as a lot of countries that do a lot worse than we do and have a lot more nefarious actors in them who are assaulting intellectual property than is the case in Canada. I think it's not an accurate portrayal of the Canadian situation. But having said that, we are committed to new legislation. I'm going to be engaging in consultations this summer with respect to that legislation. Here's hoping we can find something we can all agree with, because this has been a snakepit for Parliament for a number of years. Quite frankly, nothing has gotten through in 10 to 15 years on this. Maybe something will change now.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Before meeting people, the best solution would be to pick up the report we produced after four months of studying counterfeiting and intellectual property. Those recommendations clearly reflect the opinion of all stakeholders who appeared before the committee. I don't see the point in conducting another investigation; I think it has already been completely done. These recommendations are simple. We can implement them. The government only needs the will to do so.

Do you have that will?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Your report is an essential factor in considering these issues. I am newly appointed to the head of this department. So I would like to have the opportunity to speak with the people concerned.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Vincent.

Thank you, minister.

I also want to thank our guests for their evidence.

Thank you very much for coming to our committee on short notice and for answering our questions.

We'll allow the witnesses to depart.

As a committee we now have 27 votes on the main estimates to consider. We have two ways to go about this: we can vote on all 27 votes at once, or we can consider them individually.

Just to make sure that members of the committee are clear about this, we have three options on each vote. If we vote on them collectively, we have three options for all 27 votes. The first option is you can vote to adopt the amounts as listed on your sheets. The second is you can vote against the amount, which would reduce the estimate to zero. The third option is you can vote to reduce the estimate by a certain amount.

Is the wish of the committee to consider each of the 27 individually, or to do them all at once?

Madame Coady, Mr. Garneau, do you wish to consider all 27 at once, in the interest of efficacy?

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

I don't think it will make any difference, will it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

It's up to the members of the committee.

The one thing you cannot do when we vote on estimates is you cannot vote to increase them. Essentially, the three options you have are you can adopt the estimates in the amounts as listed; you can vote to reduce the estimates; or you can vote to eliminate a particular estimate.

So it sounds as if there's a consensus to....