Industry Committee on April 18th, 2013

[Dr. Bruce Archibald]

As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Chair, we are in the process of designing a consultation process with a number of round tables. We have done some preliminary thinking of areas where we want to go back and ask a number of experts across the province where they think there are continued opportunities or new opportunities. This is one of the ones we're going to probe.

We've had this program. From our perspective, it seems to have filled a niche and then been successful. Our initial evaluation has been very positive in terms of its results.

Is there a continued need? Does it need to be modified? Those are things we're going to be asking.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. McColeman.

We'll move on to Mr. Thibeault for five minutes.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First I'd like to thank the departmental officials for attending today. I know that appearing before a parliamentary committee isn't always the most pleasant experience for you, especially when you get tossed into the political fray every once in a while. Once again, thanks for your professionalism and for being here today.

We know that estimates provide an opportunity for parliamentarians to examine and ask questions about planned government spending for the upcoming fiscal year. We also know there's a direct correlation between government expenditures and revenue. Here a trade-off can be made between raising taxes and increasing deficits to maintain expenditures.

There has been much discussion about one particular revenue-generating aspect of the budget, namely revisions to the general preferential tariff that will increase the cost of hundreds of consumer goods, including iPods, bicycles, baby carriages, coffee makers, scissors, rubber sandals, vinegar, umbrellas, paint brushes, and perfume, just to name a few. These changes, found on page 332 of the Conservatives' economic action plan, will have a major impact on industry, on retailers and consumers, and they certainly merit, in my opinion, examination by the industry committee.

Therefore, Mr. Chair, I would like to move the following motion and then speak to it.

I move that the Standing Committee on Industry, Science, and Technology undertake a study into the increased taxation of hundreds of consumer goods detailed in budget 2013, including the 5% tax increase on iPods and MP3 players, the possibility that TVs and other goods may have been taxed retroactively, and the impact of these tax changes for consumers, retailers, and industry, and that the committee reports its findings back to the House.

May I speak to this now, Mr. Chair?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

So far what we've heard seems to be more relevant to the finance committee. This is the industry committee. I would say that this motion is out of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Madam Gallant, I understand your point, but as far as procedure is concerned, we're going to have to let it stand, and he has the liberty to speak to his motion now. We are in a timeframe, so I will adjust the clock.

You have about two minutes and 45 seconds left.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Regarding Madam Gallant's point of order, the Office of Consumer Affairs falls under industry, and much of the manufacturing sector that falls within this sector also comes under industry.

The study should get to the bottom of the ongoing debate regarding the taxation of iPods and other MP3 players as well as the plethora of other consumer goods that would be subjected to the Conservatives' increase levied on the backs of Canadian consumers and Canadian industry and should as well give the committee information on the reporting and registry of information related to tariff waivers.

My Conservative colleagues opposite will no doubt tell you that a tariff isn't a tax, but that simply isn't true, Mr. Chair. Let me stamp out that argument from the outset. Even the Encyclopædia Britannica defines a tariff as a “tax levied upon goods as they cross national boundaries, usually by the government of the importing country”. The government can call these tariff changes whatever they want, but that doesn't change what they are: a tax increase, and one that will hit the poorest Canadians the hardest.

Mike Moffat, an assistant professor at the University of Western Ontario, summarized the entirety of these tariff changes most succinctly when he said, “These tax increases are also likely to be regressive in nature”.

The inconsistencies of the Conservative plan to increase the cost of hundreds of consumer goods are apparent to analysts and industry leaders from across the spectrum of Canadian business. One such inconsistency involves the Conservatives' flagship policy of reducing tariffs on hockey equipment, yet shockingly, I've discovered that hockey helmets won't be covered by the reduction. Hockey helmets are imported under chapter 65 of the customs tariff schedule, item 6506.10.90.10, for those who are interested, for “protective headgear, athletic” specifically. However, no chapter 65 duties are listed to be changed in budget 2013. This means that protective headgear for sports will continue to be charged at the most favoured—

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

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, the NDP obviously have a political end here, a game that they want to play, which probably doesn't involve our witnesses. Perhaps we could release our witnesses from the meeting today.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

At this point in time we're in the middle of what I would call procedure as well as customary practice. What I was intending to do was to allow Mr. Thibeault to exhaust his time, because that's the practice aspect we're in, and then it would be for the Conservatives to have the floor after that, and then there would be an open debate.

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

That sounds good. Okay.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll continue. I'm sure I'm almost out of time, Mr. Chair, so having our committee undertake a study into the impact these tariff increases would have on consumers, retailers, and the industry would allow us to get to the bottom of these inconsistencies to flesh out what has and has not been subjected to this increase.

I would encourage all members of this committee to support this motion. Mr. Chair, I would like to proceed immediately to a vote on the substance of this motion.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Thibeault.

Mr. Lake.

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

Mr. Chair, of course, the regular, long-standing practice when we're dealing with committee business is to do that business in camera, so I move that we go in camera.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

That's a dilatory motion.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

We're going to move in camera, so I want to say thank you very much to our witnesses. We appreciate your testimony.

We'll suspend while we go in camera.

[Proceedings continue in camera]